EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAMS … · EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAMS SECTION Evaluation Division Corporate Services Branch Department of Justice Canada

EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAMS SECTION

Evaluation Division Corporate Services Branch

Department of Justice Canada

March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation................................................................................ 1

1.2. Structure of the Evaluation ............................................................................................... 2

2. PROFILE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAMS SECTION ................... 3

2.1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Structure ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.3. Key Functions ................................................................................................................... 4

2.4. Resources .......................................................................................................................... 7

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Document Review ........................................................................................................... 11

3.2. Administrative Data Review ........................................................................................... 11

3.3. Key Informant Interviews ............................................................................................... 12

3.4. Case Studies .................................................................................................................... 13

3.5. Methodological Limitations ............................................................................................ 13

3.6. Mitigation Strategy ......................................................................................................... 15

4. KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 17

4.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 17

4.2. Design of the Section ...................................................................................................... 26

4.3. Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes ..................................................... 28

4.4. Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy ........................................... 37

5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE ....... 43

5.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 43

5.2. Design of the Section ...................................................................................................... 44

5.3. Performance .................................................................................................................... 46

5.4. Recommendations and Management Response .............................................................. 49

Evaluation Division

Appendix A : Logic Model ......................................................................................................... 53

Appendix B : Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................... 61

Appendix C : Data Collection Instruments .............................................................................. 67

ACRONYMS

ADM Assistant Deputy Minister

CBA Canadian Bar Association

DEPARTMENT/JUS Department of Justice Canada

DG Director General

DM Deputy Minister

EAC Evaluation Advisory Committee

FJA Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs

Canada

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

GAC Global Affairs Canada

IDG International Development Group

IERD Intergovernmental and External Relations Division

IRG International Relations Group

ILPS International Legal Programs Section

OAG/PP Office of the Attorney General and Public Prosecution

NJI National Judicial Institute

PPSC Public Prosecutions Service of Canada

TCI Turks and Caicos Islands

UK-CPS United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service

(International Division)

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Service

US-OPDAT United States Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas

Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

The International Legal Programs Section (ILPS) supports Canada’s development assistance and

foreign policy priorities through the delivery of technical assistance. The projects promote

foundational Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in different

countries of the world. The work of ILPS is grounded in the sharing and transferring of Canadian

legal expertise and knowledge regarding principles of the administration of justice in Canada that

contribute to the construction, reform and strengthening of legal systems of other countries. The

Section is also called upon to provide strategic advice on justice reform matters as part of a whole-

of-government response to certain situations.

In accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, this evaluation addresses both

the relevance and performance of the Section and covers the work of ILPS between fiscal years

2009-10 and 2013-14. This is the first evaluation of the Section.

2. Methodology

The evaluation methodology consisted of a document review, administrative data review, key

informant interviews and case studies. Triangulation was used to verify and validate the findings

obtained through these methods to arrive at overall evaluation findings.

3. Findings

3.1. Relevance

Responding to Federal Priorities. The activities of ILPS support the Government of Canada’s

international priorities relating to justice sector reform through the “whole-of-government”

approach for the advancement of Canada’s foreign policy and development assistance agenda. The

Evaluation Division

ii

federal government supports international justice sector development promoting Canadian values,

the rule of law to protect the security and safety of Canadians at home and abroad, and in

supporting economic development.

Continued Need for ILPS. Canada’s extensive experience in the rule of law is often recognized

and respected by many foreign countries for its assistance to countries, ministries and institutions

to improve their legal systems and enhance security and rule of law for that country’s citizens.

Canada is well positioned to provide legal technical assistance abroad because it has an advanced

justice system along with the benefits of having both common law and civil law traditions.

ILPS has been providing government-to-government technical assistance because it has the legal

expertise and competencies, the credibility, and the experience to develop and manage legal

technical assistance projects to foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice system.

Additionally, beneficiaries from recipient countries receiving assistance indicated that there is a

need for ILPS to provide legal technical assistance since the recipient country often does not have

the resources nor the expertise to upgrade their legal system.

ILPS has designed and implemented seven new legal technical assistance projects during the

evaluation period, of which two of these projects have been extended and the remaining five

projects have been completed. The total time spent by ILPS executing technical assistance projects

between 2009-10 and 2013-14, ranged from approximately 12,000 hours to 33,000 hours, or 67%

of the total time spent undertaking ILPS functions.

ILPS has also been involved in providing legal policy development and strategic advice to other

government departments, especially to GAC, on matters pertaining to international justice sector

reform and assistance, and the integration of the access to justice and the rule of law. The time

spent by ILPS researching and providing strategic advice ranged from nearly 1,900 hours to almost

4,600 hours between 2009-10 and 2013-14. This time spent on strategic advisory work accounts

for approximately 11% of the total time spent undertaking ILPS functions.

Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities. The Department’s provision of legal

technical assistance is consistent with the Government of Canada’s “whole-of-government”

approach of promoting Canada’s democratic values in targeted countries and regions around the

world, and strengthening the rule of law as a means of supporting social and economic

development and security. Under the whole-of-government approach, ILPS serves a general

Evaluation of the

International Legal Programs Section

iii

advisory and policy-development role in the Department and within the federal government as a

centre of both theoretical and practical expertise on international legal technical assistance.

3.2. Design of the Section

Mandate of ILPS. The evaluation found that the mandate of the Section is not well articulated.

Key informants therefore, suggested that the Section develop a clearly defined vision and mission

statement and to communicate them across the Department and to other relevant federal

departments and agencies.

Composition of ILPS. The Section consists of a core group of permanent employees and a flexible

group of non-permanent or temporary employees on secondment to the Section from across the

Department and/or other federal departments. This flexible structure of staffing process provides

the Section with specific expertise to address particular needs of funded projects and the capacity

to respond to emerging demands and priorities.

Roles and Responsibilities of ILPS. The evaluation found that there are various types of

international legal technical assistance work undertaken within the Department and there is not a

central point of coordination for requests of this type of assistance. Other sections within the

Department provide - generally out of their existing resources - international legal technical

assistance on an ad hoc basis and focus on Canadian law. Whereas, ILPS provides - on a cost-

recovery basis - legal technical assistance to foreign countries wanting to reform their justice

sector, and consequently projects are more targeted, comprehensive, and tied to specific priorities

and outcomes.

This fragmentation of international legal technical assistance activities has the potential to result

in duplication of work and inconsistencies. Though the evaluation did not find any evidence of

this, some key informants thought that there is a lack of understanding of the role of ILPS within

the Department and the nature of their substantive legal work. According to these key informants,

one possible solution could be for the Section to promote its roles and responsibilities to relevant

areas of the Department.

Performance Monitoring and Reporting Capacity. The Section has a systematic process in place

within ILPS for collecting, monitoring and reporting on performance results of legal technical

assistance projects by using GAC’s reporting system. However, for strategic advisory and outreach

activities, there is no systematic and standardized process for monitoring performance and

reporting on its outcomes other than recording the time spent working on these activities in iCase.

Evaluation Division

iv

3.3. Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Project Design and Implementation Function of Legal Technical Assistance Projects

During the evaluation period, ILPS developed and implemented seven new legal technical

assistance projects in five recipient countries namely Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, Turks and

Caicos Islands, Mexico and Jamaica. Of these, five projects have been completed and the

remaining two projects have been extended. The types of technical assistance projects

implemented varied in nature and duration. These types of projects address institutional capacity,

and legal and judicial system foundations by strengthening justice ministries; advising and offering

policy support on anti-corruption measures; developing legal resource centres; and strengthening

legislative drafting functions. Across all of the technical assistance projects delivered, there was a

high level of knowledge transfer.

However, there was limited information available with respect to the achievement of the

intermediate outcome of enhancing the capacity of a recipient country to deliver fair and accessible

justice. The evaluation found that this was dependent on the length of time a technical assistance

project was in operation, the comprehensiveness of a project, and the availability of data, including

post-measurement data, collected during and after operation of a project to assess its progress.

The evaluation also found that identifying and understanding the needs of the beneficiaries are

important for tailoring a legal technical assistance initiative to their context. This understanding of

the needs of the beneficiaries stems from the length of time the project is in operation and

interacting with the beneficiaries on a regular basis. Timing and sequencing of project activities

are also key factors to successfully execute a project.

The evaluation further noted that projects that only focus on transferring knowledge of Canadian

justice system principles, processes, structures and experiences, and in operation for a period of

three years or less and not as comprehensive, are less likely to have an impact on the delivery of

fair and accessible justice. In addition, the availability of data, such as feedback or survey data

during the operation of a project or any post-measurement data, are essential for a project to

demonstrate progress and impacts.

The evaluation identified promising practices that aided in the achievement of expected outcomes

by using the two case studies, the Palestinian Authority Project and the Mexico Project with its

three sub-projects.

Promising practices included:

Evaluation of the


v

Having a Field Director and Deputy Director co-located with the beneficiaries of the technical

assistance project was useful and critical to the success, legitimacy and credibility of the

project.

Planning the project in a holistic fashion was beneficial to the overall project, ensuring the

appropriate sequencing of activities.

Hiring local specialists to work alongside the local employees was beneficial in order to

reinforce knowledge transfer between specialist and employee.

A committee of international donors was established to be aware of the recipients’ evolving

needs and to minimize and prevent any overlap or duplication of technical assistance provided,

and at the same time improve the efficiency of their respective projects.

Study tours to Canada provided an opportunity for judges to consolidate both theoretical and

skills-based learning about the adversarial judicial system and to observe firsthand the skills

required for a judge under this type of judicial system. When the judges visited the Canadian

courts, the principles and processes that were discussed became “real” and more

understandable. Although the learning exchanges to Canada can be costly it is very valuable

since it is difficult to replicate the learning in non-Canadian environments.

Partnerships with local and regional organizations in the recipient country also contributed to

the transfer of knowledge.

There were a few challenges during implementation including:

The contracting of local staff, which caused significant delays and affected implementation

schedules of the project.

The capacity of the recipient institution to participate in the training activities. The recipients

were busy with their daily work and there was a limited capacity in terms of numbers, time

and skills to participate in the many training and technical missions provided. While this issue

may have been a result of the compressed timeframe, there was insufficient information

available to make a clear determination.

Strategic advice and outreach

ILPS is the Section within the Department that is sought by GAC to provide strategic advice on

policy matters relating to justice sector reform in a foreign country. The Section also participates

in interdepartmental committees and working groups to discuss Canada’s intervention in conflict

Evaluation Division

vi

or priority country areas. In order to inform its strategic advisory responsibilities, ILPS engages in

trilateral forums with the UK and the US to share experiences, stay current on emerging issues and

to avoid any duplication of work. As part of its outreach function at the CBA annual conferences,

ILPS organizes and coordinates annual workshops on international justice sector development.

Besides its purpose of information exchange, ILPS creates and maintains a network of contacts in

the international development community and advances Canada’s foreign policy priorities and

international development justice sector.

3.4. Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

The human resources organizational structure of ILPS consists of a core group of permanent

employees and a flexible group of temporary employees on secondment to ILPS. Based on the

funding and needs of the legal technical assistance projects, ILPS draws on other experts from

across the Department and/or departments, or contract experts outside the federal government. The

experts come to ILPS on secondment for a specified period of time to work solely on a technical

assistance project. This organizational structure of core and flexible groups is considered efficient

due to the flexibility of the human resources structure responding to the needs of technical

assistance projects and the provision of strategic advisory work.

Despite the organizational structure of ILPS being efficient, there were some concerns with respect

to internal knowledge transfer. At the end of a project or at the end of a specified period with a

project, the temporary employee(s) return to their respective department(s), which can lead to a

loss of expertise and knowledge gained during a project. Some key informants thought that the

Section does not have a strong knowledge management component, and therefore, minimal

internal knowledge transfer occurs.

In terms of the level of effort, counsel (LA-00, LA-01 and LA-2A) tend to work more on the legal

technical assistance projects and the senior counsel (LA-2B and LA-3A) focused more on the

strategic advisory work.

Despite the usefulness of the iCase data, there were challenges in analyzing this data in terms of

the inconsistencies on how information was entered into iCase. This made it difficult to

differentiate between legal technical assistance project work and strategic advisory work.

ILPS underwent a program review in fiscal year 2011-12. The decision was then made that the

Section will operate on a full cost-recovery funding model on the basis of funds generated from

providing legal technical assistance activities through projects to recipient countries, and therefore

Evaluation of the


vii

funded by GAC. The cost-recovery approach was implemented progressively from fiscal year

2012-13. Key informants identified challenges with this type of funding model resulting from gaps

between projects, staff retention, and the ability to respond quickly and effectively to requests, and

securing the necessary expertise for the Section.

In spite of the efficiencies of the Section’s organizational structure, the evaluation found that there

are factors influencing the Section’s ability to operate efficiently that include the following:

Implications of cost recovery thereby influencing staff retention, securing corporate memory

and capacity building within the Section. In addition, the cost recovery only covers for legal

technical assistance project activities and not for strategic advisory work or conducting needs

assessments of potential projects.

Shortage of administrative support, which in turn affects the efficiency of the counsel’s work

in that they often have to complete administrative work such as travel arrangements,

contracting of experts, and administrative aspects of project reporting, that divert their attention

from substantive project-related work.

Travel constraints due to the centralization of administrative processes and reduced flexibility.

Challenges procuring international contracts for renting office space, buying equipment, or

hiring local staff in the recipient country has led to long delays in project implementation.

Limited knowledge sharing between ILPS project staff has influenced the planning and

development of new project activities.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The International Legal Programs Section (“ILPS” or the “Section”) is located within the Policy

Sector of the Department of Justice Canada (the “Department”). The Section is responsible for

developing and implementing the Department’s cooperation initiatives in support of the efforts of

foreign countries seeking to reform their justice system.

1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation was completed in accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation,

which requires departments to evaluate all direct program spending. The primary purpose of the

evaluation was to assess the relevance and performance of the Section. In terms of relevance, the

evaluation considered the continued need for the Section and alignment of its activities with the

Government of Canada priorities, departmental strategic outcomes, and federal roles and

responsibilities. With regard to performance, the evaluation considered both the effectiveness (i.e.

the extent to which the Section has achieved its intended outcomes) and efficiency and economy

(i.e. the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired

outcomes). The evaluation assessed the Section’s performance as a whole and not the outcomes of

individual technical assistance projects.

The evaluation focused on the Section’s activities from 2009-10 to 2013-14. During this evaluation

period, the ILPS comprised of two administrative sub-divisions: the International Development

Group (IDG) and the International Relations Group (IRG). In April 2014, the IRG was moved to

the Intergovernmental and External Relations Division (IERD) of the Policy Sector. As the ILPS

no longer has the responsibility for managing the IRG, this group was not included in the

evaluation.

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division conducted the evaluation. An Evaluation Advisory

Committee (EAC) consisting of representatives from the Section provided input into the

evaluation. This was the first evaluation of the Section.

Evaluation Division

2

1.2. Structure of the Evaluation

The report contains five sections, including the introduction. Section 2 provides the background

of the ILPS, describing its structure, resources and services. Section 3 describes the methodology

used in the evaluation. Section 4 summaries the key findings, and Section 5 presents the

conclusions, recommendations and management response.

3

2. PROFILE OF THE INTERNATIONAL

LEGAL PROGRAMS SECTION

The International Legal Programs Section (ILPS) was created by the Department of Justice Canada

in 2005 to support Canada's whole-of-government approach to the achievement of the country's

foreign policy objectives and development assistance agenda.

2.1. Background

The Section initially comprised of two (2) business lines, the IDG and the IRG. The IDG was

responsible for developing and implementing the Department’s cooperation initiatives in support

of the efforts of foreign countries to reform their justice system. The IRG had planned, coordinated

and organized international visits of foreign justice officials to the Department, and senior

representatives of the Department attending meetings and/or conferences overseas. The IRG

moved to the IERD of the Policy Sector in April 2014.

The ILPS is responsible for providing technical assistance to countries seeking to reform their

justice system. The expression "technical assistance" — also called "technical cooperation" and,

in the justice sector, "legal technical assistance" — refers to a range of activities that enhance or

complement human and institutional capabilities through the development, transfer, adoption and

use of skills and technology from sources external to the recipient government or organization.

The expression is generally used to distinguish that form of aid from "humanitarian assistance"

and "financial support". This technical assistance was for the most part provided through projects

once funded by the Canadian International Development Agency or the Department of Foreign

Affairs and International Trade, and which then merged into a single entity in June 2013, to form

the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. In November 2015, it was re-named

to Global Affairs Canada (GAC).

History of ILPS

The Department began developing justice-related assistance projects after the collapse of the Soviet

system and the fall of Berlin Wall, in 1989, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs,

Evaluation Division

4

which at the time was responsible for supporting post-communist countries. The first cooperative

program implemented by the Department was in Hungary and commenced in 1990. Other

initiatives followed from 1990-2000 with other former Soviet-bloc countries, including the Czech

Republic, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. Eventually, countries beyond the

Central and Eastern European sphere requested assistance.

In May 1999, a distinct administrative unit within the Department was established under the name

of "International Cooperation Group". A staff of specialists was consolidated into a single unit to

provide a more coordinated approach to technical assistance on justice issues to developing

countries.

Then in 2005, the Section was created with two business lines comprising of the IDG and the IRG.

2.2. Structure

The ILPS, which is part of the Policy Sector, is led by the Director General (DG) with the

responsibilities of overseeing the provision of legal technical assistance initiatives to foreign

countries seeking to reform their justice system, and strategic advice and outreach functions.

In line with its key functions, the Section consists of a core team of permanent employees and a

flexible group of non-permanent or temporary employees on secondment to the Section from

across the Department and/or other federal departments. This organizational structure of staffing

provides flexibility by maintaining a core complement of staff to respond to ongoing strategic

advisory and outreach functions, and temporary personnel to respond to more time limited and

specific needs of GAC funded projects.

2.3. Key Functions

The ILPS supports the Department and the federal government in their role on international justice

sector development matters through two key functions: project design and implementation; and

strategic advice and outreach.

Program Design and Implementation Function

The ILPS is responsible for the design and implementation of technical assistance initiatives to

foreign countries seeking to reform their justice system. These activities involve the transfer of

technical expertise rooted in the Canadian justice system.

Evaluation of the


5

The Section’s program-based legal technical assistance is in some cases carried out in the context

of larger government foreign policy or aid-based initiatives that seek to incorporate justice and

security sector areas like public safety, policing or border control. This program-based work

applies a whole-of-government approach to foreign policy, and requires key competencies

associated with international justice sector development, such as knowledge of legal technical

assistance theory, solution-oriented system design, and the ability to work in a multi-disciplinary

and cross-cultural environment.

Currently, ILPS’ legal technical assistance initiatives are undertaken at the request and with the

financial support of GAC. The Section uses GAC bilateral program funding to work with justice

system partners, normally on a government-to-government basis.

To achieve longer-term and sustainable results, ILPS program-based assistance work has

concentrated on initiatives that focus on institutional development and capacity building.

The technical assistance team within ILPS includes lawyers, notaries, and other professionals. The

Section draws upon the expertise of individuals and institutions from outside the Section - both

within the Department and external (e.g., judges, academics and consultants) - depending on the

expertise required for particular initiatives. The technical assistance is primarily substantive in

nature, and involves the transfer of knowledge and experience on justice sector issues. It can

include sharing or advising on Canadian and international standards, laws and policies in respect

of criminal or civil matters. Depending on the recipient country requirements, the legal technical

assistance may also need to deal with operational matters, such as strengthening the human

resources capacity or organizational design of the foreign justice institution.

ILPS’ technical assistance work is grounded in institutional, justice sector reform activities and, to

date, has led to the provision of support in areas such as:

reorganization and capacity building in ministries of justice;

reorganization and capacity building in criminal prosecution services;

creation of a specialized legislative drafting office;

court improvement and drafting of judicial ethical guidelines;

establishment of law reform commissions;

creation of a young offenders regime;

Evaluation Division

6

criminal law reform; and

civil code reform.

Legal technical assistance initiatives have been implemented in countries as diverse as Hungary,

the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Mexico, Jamaica and the Palestinian Authority (West

Bank).

Strategic Advice and Outreach Function

The scope of ILPS' activities has expanded. Due to its expertise and involvement in international

development, the Section has increasingly become engaged in policy development and strategic

advisory work to support GAC on matters of justice sector reform.

ILPS’ strategic advisory role consists of:

providing strategic advice both internally and to other government departments with respect to

the development of Canadian foreign policy and international justice sector development

approaches;

conducting research on new and emerging trends and approaches in the delivery of

international justice sector development; and

undertaking internal and external communication activities by participating in bilateral or

multilateral information-sharing meetings on international justice sector development.

Research and development activities include conducting research on the legal, social, economic

and political situation of a foreign country; research on justice organizational-related matters; legal

policy development in the area of justice sector development; and the development of options to

guide decision making by developing countries.

Other strategic advisory activities include:

providing advice to senior management on the appropriateness of departmental involvement

in a given foreign country, as well as the nature and scope of any legal technical assistance that

could be given;

providing justice sector development advice on international justice sector issues discussed at

Deputy Minister (DM), Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) or DG level interdepartmental

committees, as well as senior level meetings with foreign government officials;

Evaluation of the


7

participating in a variety of interdepartmental committees and working groups dealing with

failed and fragile states; and

undertaking major roles in some international meetings. For example, ILPS was a key

participant in the Meeting of Commonwealth Experts on the Rule of Law Programme that was

held in Ottawa on March 1-3, 2011.

The Section’s outreach activities have included participation in bilateral or multilateral

information-sharing meetings on international justice sector reform with counterparts in foreign

countries. This has included participation in bi-annual Canada-UK-US Trilateral Forums

pertaining to international justice sector development issues. ILPS also co-hosts international

justice sector development workshops with the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) at its annual

conferences.

Partners and Beneficiaries

ILPS partners with representatives of the federal government and justice system both within

Canada and in foreign countries.

Examples of partners include:

GAC;

other federal agencies (e.g. Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (FJA),

Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC));

national organizations (e.g. CBA, National Judicial Institute (NJI));

international organizations (e.g. United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS),

Commonwealth Secretariat); and

foreign governments.

The beneficiaries of ILPS’ legal technical assistance through the program-based initiatives include

foreign countries and Canadians.

2.4. Resources

The resources of ILPS had consisted of a mix of Justice A-base funds and other government

department funds such as from GAC. The A-base salary funding (permanent salary budget) that

Evaluation Division

8

the Section had received was fully utilized to help fund the positions of the Director General and

the Director of ILPS, and related administrative support positions. In 2011-12, the decision was

made that the Section will operate on a full cost-recovery approach to carry out its technical

assistance activities (i.e., on basis of the funds ILPS recovers through the implementation of

technical legal activities/projects funded by another government department). The cost recovery

approach was implemented progressively. This meant that the A-base salary funding decreased

over the fiscal years to be eliminated eventually. Table 1 lists the expenditures of ILPS by fiscal

year during the evaluation period.

Table 1: ILPS Expenditures ($) by Year

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

A-base Salary Budget per Yeara 474,190 496,380 508,687 483,253 222,650

Recoveriesb 1,518,240 1,342,168 1,482,024 1,755,691 1,368,793

Total Budgetc 1,992,430 1,838,548 1,990,711 2,238,944 1,591,443

Operating and Maintenance

Expenditures

181,632 206,016 88,019 84,746 68,080

Salaries for Temporary Staff 1,193,368 1,068,253 1,067,680 1,145,780 1,084,007

Total Expensesd 1,849,190 1,770,649 1,664,386 1,713,779 1,334,737

Variancee 143,240 67,899 326,325 525,165 216,706

a Salaries for the Director-General and Director of ILPS and related administrative support staff b Funding received for undertaking the legal technical assistance projects c A-base budget and Recoveries (i.e., legal technical assistance project funds) d Total salaries (A-base and temporary staff ) plus the operating and maintenance expenditures e Difference between Total Budget and Total Expenses

The composition of full-time equivalents (FTEs) within ILPS is fluid since the number of positions

vary year-to-year due to the temporary employees that come to ILPS on secondment to work on

the technical assistance projects. Table 2 below illustrates the number of FTEs for the various

categories during the evaluation period.

Evaluation of the


9

Table 2: ILPS Human Resources (FTEs) by Year

Categories 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

FTEs FTEs FTEs FTEs FTEs

Counsel 11 11 12 12 10

Other Professional(s) 1 1 1 2 1

Administrative Support Staff 7 7 6 7 5

Other (Studentsf) 4 4 2 0 0

Total 23 23 21 21 16 f Students from the Legal Excellence Program articled with ILPS to provide targeted legal research and writing

support to the technical assistance projects.

11

3. METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of the Section draws on four lines of evidence: document review, review of

administrative data, key informant interviews with departmental officials and other stakeholders,

and case studies. Each of these methods is described more fully below. This section also includes

a brief description of the methodological challenges.

The evaluation matrix, which identifies the evaluation questions, indicators and lines of evidence

used to guide the study, can be found in Appendix B. The data collection instruments developed

to respond to the evaluation matrix are in Appendix C.

3.1. Document Review

An extensive document review was conducted both to inform the development of the data

collection instruments and to address a majority of the evaluation questions. The review also

provided insight into the operations of the Section. Documents reviewed included Departmental

Performance Reports; Reports on Plans and Priorities; the Policy Sector’s Business Plans; legal

technical assistance semi-annual and annual project reports to GAC; Government of Canada

documents including documents provided for partner countries; media reports relating to the

projects; finance and human resources information; foreign policy plans; project performance

management frameworks; Administrative Arrangements for the legal technical assistance projects;

strategic advice documents; and other supporting documents.

3.2. Administrative Data Review

The evaluation included a review of administrative data from the Department’s iCase1 database

for fiscal years 2009-10 to 2013-14, which provided descriptive information about the types of

files for which the Section is responsible and the associated level of effort (number of hours).

1 iCase is the Department’s integrated case management, timekeeping and billing, document management and

reporting system.

Evaluation Division

12

3.3. Key Informant Interviews

The key informant interviews conducted for this evaluation addressed the majority of the

evaluation questions and were a key line of evidence in gathering information about the relevance

as well as performance.

A list of potential key informants was prepared, and interview guides tailored to each key

informant group were developed in consultation with the EAC. Potential interviewees received an

invitation to participate in an interview. Those who agreed to participate were provided with a

copy of the interview guide in the official language of their choice prior to the interview. Each

interview was conducted in the respondents’ preferred official language, and key informants were

assured of the anonymity of their responses.

Interviews were conducted with a total of 33 key informants with representatives from the

Department, GAC, other federal government department, beneficiaries from the funded projects,

and other partners.

Table 3 below provides a breakdown of the number of key informant interviews by ILPS activities

and the response rate, and includes those interviewed as part of the case studies.

Table 3: Interviews by ILPS Activities

ILPS Activities Suggested # Participated # Response Rate

(%)

Additional

interviews

(Snowball

Effect)

Total #

interviewed

(Participated +

Additional)

Jamaica Project 7 7 100% - 7

Mexico Project 5 3 60% 5 8*

Palestinian Authority Project 9 7 78% 2 9*

Strategic Advice 6 4 67% - 4

Outreach 6 5 83% - 5

TOTAL 33 26 78% 7 33

*case study interviews

Evaluation of the


13

3.4. Case Studies

The Mexico2 and the Palestinian Authority legal technical assistance projects were used as case

studies. The purpose of the case studies was to illustrate what worked well and did not work well

in terms of factors either contributing to the success or constraining the projects and to allow a

more in-depth assessment of the projects. The choice of the projects as case studies was made in

consultation with the EAC.

The methodology for the case study approach included a detailed document review of project

reports, media reports and other supporting documents followed by key informant interviews with

beneficiaries, representatives from GAC associated with those projects selected as case studies,

temporary staff who had worked on one of the projects, departmental staff, ILPS staff working on

the projects, and other partners involved with the projects such as Canadian experts delivering the

training, and the Canadian embassy. See Table 3 for a detailed breakdown of the key informants.

A total of 17 case study interviews were conducted to support the documented information, and

which is inclusive in the total number of interviews conducted. A ‘snowball’ approach was used

whereby additional interviewee sources were recommended by some of the case study

interviewees. Seven (7) additional interviews were conducted between the two (2) projects.

A majority (67%) of the interviews including key informants and case studies, were conducted

either by telephone or in-person, and the remaining (33%) interviews were conducted in writing

by completing the interview questionnaire. There were several reasons for this latter approach. For

example, as some interviewees spoke neither English nor French, the interview guides were

translated into Spanish or Arabic. The completed responses were then translated into English.

Additionally, the difference in time zones posed a scheduling challenge.

3.5. Methodological Limitations

The evaluation faced some methodological limitations which are discussed by line of evidence

below.

2 The technical assistance project in Mexico had consisted of three sub-projects namely:

1) Education and Training for Judges;

2) National/State Licensing and Education for Lawyers; and

3) Harmonization of Criminal Legislation and Strengthening of Prosecution Services.

Evaluation Division

14

Interviews and Case Studies. The interviews with key informants have the possibilities of self-

reported response bias and strategic response bias. Self-reported response bias occurs when

individuals are reporting on their own activities and so may want to portray themselves in the best

light. Strategic response bias occurs when participants answer questions with the desire to affect

outcomes. The interviews also have the possibility of selection bias in that the potential key

informants were identified by the EAC which consisted of some ILPS staff members.

For the Mexico – Education and Training of Judges technical assistance sub-project, only judges

and magistrates were interviewed. Other recipients (lawyers and prosecutors) from the other two

sub-projects of the Mexico project were not interviewed. It was not possible to identify or locate

such individuals as the project had ended before the evaluation began. Similarly, it was not possible

to identify interviewees from the Ukraine and Turks and Caicos Islands technical assistance

projects so follow-up was limited. The Ukraine and Turks and Caicos Islands’ projects had ended

in 2012, and the Mexico project had ended in 2013.

The projects for the case studies were not chosen by random selection since the sample of projects

within the evaluation period was not large. The two projects that were identified as case studies

were considered to provide a good representation of the diversity of the Section’s work and were

intended to be illustrative of the Section’s work in technical assistance projects.

iCase Data Review. Overall, iCase was a useful source of information for the evaluation by

providing some insight into the type of activities provided by the Section. However, there were

some limitations.

It was difficult to determine with accuracy the amount of technical assistance project

implementation work, pure advisory work, and outreach work done by the Section using the iCase

data as staff had entered data inconsistently. For instance, a large portion of the Section’s technical

assistance project work was entered into more than one category in iCase (i.e., corporate, advisory,

general, policy) which did not distinguish the nature of the service provided. This was also the

case for the strategic advisory work, which was entered into more than one category in iCase and

was not fully descriptive of the nature of its advisory work. Therefore, it was difficult to determine

with full accuracy what was pure advisory work.

In addition, the time keeping in iCase of the temporary employees who came to ILPS on

secondment were not distinguished from those of the permanent employees. Therefore, it was

difficult to determine the level of effort by the flexible group of temporary employees.

Evaluation of the


15

3.6. Mitigation Strategy

The mitigation strategy for the above methodological limitations was to use multiple lines of

evidence and which included both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to answer

the evaluation questions. The evaluation gathered information from the Section, the Department,

representatives from GAC, other federal government department, the beneficiaries and partners of

the funded projects, project-related and other relevant documents, and comprehensive

administrative data review (iCase). By triangulating3 the findings from the different sources

countered the concern that the study’s findings were the result of a single method or source, and

at the same time to strengthen the conclusions of the evaluation.

3 Triangulation of findings refers to checking of the findings against the different sources of data collection and

perspectives.

17

4. KEY FINDINGS

This section combines information from all lines of evidence and presents the findings according

to the broad evaluation issues of relevance and performance.

4.1. Relevance

The evaluation considered the relevance of ILPS with respect to responding to federal government

priorities, the continued need for the Section’s activities given the demand for its services; as well

as its alignment with federal roles and responsibilities and departmental strategic outcomes.

4.1.1. Responding to Federal Priorities

The activities of ILPS support the Government of Canada’s international priorities relating to

justice sector reform through the “whole-of-government” approach for the advancement of

Canada’s foreign policy and development assistance agenda. Canada’s foreign policy is an

extension of the national interest and is consistent with Canadian values of freedom, democracy,

human rights and the rule of law. Further to this, the federal government supports international

justice sector development and regards it as an essential step for Canada in promoting Canadian

values, enhancing its status or prosperity in the international sphere by promoting the rule of law

to protect the security and safety of Canadians at home and abroad, and in supporting economic

development.

The work of ILPS is grounded in the sharing and transferring of Canadian legal expertise and

knowledge regarding the principles of the administration of justice in Canada that contribute to the

construction, reform and strengthening of legal systems of other countries. Therefore, in

collaboration and in cooperation with GAC, ILPS promotes good governance, the rule of law,

respect for human rights, international security, and the administration of public affairs in

accordance with the law through the delivery of justice sector technical and institutional capacity

building assistance to countries seeking to reform their justice systems.

Evaluation Division

18

ILPS’ legal technical assistance initiatives are demonstrably linked to the Government of Canada’s

political commitments, foreign policies for specific countries (e.g., Jamaica4) or regional specific

strategies5, or as a result of a country asking for assistance. By illustration, ILPS’ work on justice

reform matters in Mexico was directly linked to a broader foreign policy strategy - the Americas

Strategy - which included both a focus on Mexico6 as well as the thematic areas of justice and

security. Another example would be justice sector reform in the Middle East, particularly in the

Palestinian Authority, to build accountable and effective institutions and meet priorities of a future

stable and peaceful Palestinian state7. Further to this, all of ILPS’ technical assistance funded

projects (e.g., Palestinian Authority and Jamaica) are designed and implemented having adhered

to GAC’s identified development priorities.

4.1.2. Continued Need for ILPS

Canada’s extensive experience in the rule of law is often recognized and respected by many foreign

countries for its assistance to countries, ministries and institutions to improve their legal systems

and enhance security and rule of law for the country’s citizens. Canada is well positioned to

provide legal technical assistance abroad because it has an advanced justice system along with the

benefits of having both common law and civil law traditions. In an era when justice issues often

cross borders and concerns such as organized crime, terrorism and money laundering are

prominent, the Government of Canada works closely with other countries to develop transnational

responses. Such responses can include providing legal technical assistance and training to other

countries to ensure they have strong justice systems so that Canada can work with them to

effectively address transnational organized crime and global terrorism.

Key informants highlighted that the provision of legal technical assistance to countries wanting to

reform their justice system contributes to the safety and security of Canadians and to the protection

of Canadian business interests. They explained that Canadians would be confident investing in a

country with a functioning justice system, as there would be a remedy available in the event of any

problems. The key informants further noted that the international justice environment is an

increasingly important consideration in the development of the Canadian justice system and in

promoting more generally Canadian security and prosperity. Particular in this regard are

4 Canada and the Americas: Priorities and Progress. Government of Canada, 2009. Page 13. 5 Sharing Successes: Canada’s Engagement in the Americas 2012-2013. Government of Canada, 2013. Page 10 6 Sharing Successes: Canada’s Engagement in the Americas 2012-2013. Government of Canada, 2013. Pages 2, 14 7 West Bank and Gaza Strategy 2009. Global Affairs Canada, Government of Canada.

http://www.international.gc.ca/development-developpement/aidtransparency-

transparenceaide/country_strategies_pays/west_bank_gaza-cisjordanie_bande_de_gaza.aspx?lang=eng

Evaluation of the


19

international engagement activities to promote the rule of law as being essential to the

Government’s efforts to protect the safety and security of Canadians domestically and abroad.

Within the Department, ILPS serves as a centre of expertise and provides for a coordinated

approach to the Departmental contributions to the Government of Canada’s foreign policy as it

relates to matters of justice sector reform and capacity building in foreign countries. In addition,

ILPS fills a gap within the Department and across the federal government as a centre for both

theoretical and practical expertise on international legal technical assistance. Moreover, ILPS is

often requested by GAC to provide strategic advice relating to international justice sector

development issues. The capacity to provide this type of advice often comes from the experience

and knowledge of conducting legal technical assistance work.


expertise in terms of the necessary skill set and competencies, the credibility, and the experience

to develop and manage legal technical assistance projects that can be useful to foreign countries

seeking to modernize their justice system. The Section can provide substantive legal expertise from

a government perspective, and it has access to many experts within the Department from different

fields of law and across the government to assist other government institutions. It is appropriate

for a government partner such as ILPS to work with a recipient country’s government since it

would be government-to-government and would understand the functioning of government, and

the challenges it faces. This is a unique niche that only a government entity can provide to another

country seeking technical assistance.



the resources nor the expertise to upgrade their legal system. Since Canada has an advanced legal

system, recipient countries such as Mexico, the Palestinian Authority, and Jamaica have so far

benefited from the transfer of knowledge.

Demand for legal technical assistance projects

ILPS has designed and implemented seven (7) new legal technical assistance projects during the

evaluation period, of which two of these projects have been extended and the remaining five (5)

projects have been completed. See Table 4 for a summary of the technical assistance projects

executed by ILPS during the evaluation period.

Evaluation Division

20

Table 4: Summary of Legal Technical Assistance Projects

Country Duration & Funding Main Activities

Ukraine May 21, 2008 – July 31, 2012

$5,439,571

Anti-corruption project through mainly funding

extensive research on corruption-related matters

by a local research institute.

Palestinian Authority May 6, 2009 – Mar 31, 2014

Extension: Sep 30, 2016

$16,300,000

The project provides assistance to the Office of

the Attorney General and Public Prosecution

(OAG/PP) to:

Strengthen organizational and operational

capacity of the OAG/PP to improve

effectiveness of public prosecution;

Improve coordination and integration of the

OAG/PP with other justice sector institutions;

Increase professional capacity of the

OAG/PP through training and leadership

development, and in areas of human rights

and gender sensitivity.

Mexico (1) Apr 1, 2010 – Mar 29, 2013

$1,850,140

Education and training of judges to increase the

judges’ ability to manage the new adversarial

system in the courts; assist the Mexican judiciary

in developing national and state-level education

program for judges; and assist with the

modernization of the rules of judicial conduct and

disciplinary mechanisms, and reviewing of

existing court rules and practices.

Mexico (2) Apr 1, 2010 – Mar 29, 2013

$1,029,815

National/State licensing and education systems

for lawyers including the development of a

system of licensing for lawyers, code of ethics,

and education programs for lawyers.

Mexico (3) Apr 1, 2010 – Mar 29, 2013

$ 1,231,045

Harmonization of criminal legislation and

strengthening of prosecution services to help the

Government of Mexico develop a strategy to

strengthen the integrity and quality of the criminal

justice system; contribute to the improvement of

the services rendered by public prosecutors; and

support the creation of a national strategy to

establish more coherent criminal procedure

through the harmonization of criminal legislation.

Evaluation of the


21

Country Duration & Funding Main Activities

Turks and Caicos Islands

(TCI)

Apr 2010 – Oct 2012

$352,040

To review the TCI Evidence Ordinance and

proposed DNA legislation; strengthen the OAG

library with legal documentation; and support

improvement of document and file management

of the OAG.

Jamaica Dec 1, 2011 – Mar 31, 2017

Extension: Mar 31, 2020

$9,093,849

Strengthen key areas of the Jamaican justice

system including:

Assisting the Ministry of Justice increase its

policy development capacity; assisting the

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

in reviewing its organization and functioning;

Contributing to the improvement of the

efficiency of the court system;

Assisting with the development of ethical

guidelines for judges;

Reviewing the aspects of how witnesses are

treated in the court process.

Figure 1 illustrates the total time spent executing technical assistance projects between 2009-10

and 2013-14, ranging from approximately 12,000 hours to 33,000 hours, or 67% of the total time

spent undertaking ILPS functions. There was a marked increase in the number of hours spent on

projects in 2011-12 with over 32,000 hours, as all seven projects were in operation during that

fiscal year and the Section had a relatively high complement of FTEs. Then 2012-13 had the

second highest number of hours spent on projects with almost 21,000 hours. By the end of that

year, five of the projects were completed resulting in a decrease in hours in 2013-14 as well as a

decrease in the number of FTEs.

Evaluation Division

22

Figure 1: Total Hours executing Legal Technical Assistance Projects

Source: iCase Data

Demand for strategic advisory work

ILPS has been involved in providing legal policy development and strategic advice to other


reform and assistance, and the integration of the access to justice and the rule of law. As a result,

ILPS actively participates in a variety of whole-of-government, foreign policy and security sector

based inter-departmental committees and working groups. Based on the evaluation evidence from

key informant interviews and document review, ILPS typically has been sought because of its

knowledge, legal expertise and involvement in international development-related matters, and of

its experiences, implementing legal technical assistance projects in particular countries and regions

of the world. The key informants noted that the needs are even greater now to have input from

ILPS with its legal expertise due to events occurring in regions of the world such as in North

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

urs

Fiscal Years

Total Hours executing Legal Technical Asssistance Projects2009-2010 to 2013-2014

Evaluation of the


23

Africa, Syria and the Middle East where security, migration and human trafficking are major

concerns.

ILPS has been requested by senior levels of the Department or other parts of the government

familiar with its expertise to conduct legal and policy research and to provide strategic advice. In

addition, ILPS has been called upon to provide support for the Deputy Minister of Justice’s

participation in the Deputy Minister Committee on Conflict and Fragility, and for Justice’s Senior

Assistant Deputy Minister - Policy on the ADM Round Table on Mexico. The depth and range of

such contributions can vary considerably depending on the nature of the subjects being considered

by these committees. When the committees address international development matters, the

analytical work required by ILPS can be substantial. ILPS also receives requests for assistance

especially when the relevant ministers of countries of interest visit Canada. In these instances, a

request may initially originate as strategic advice and could potentially lead to a legal technical

assistance project.

Figure 2 illustrates the time spent researching and providing strategic advice ranging from nearly

1,900 hours to almost 4,600 hours between 2009-10 and 2013-14. This time spent on strategic

advisory work accounts for approximately 11% of the total time spent undertaking ILPS functions.

Again, there was a marked increase in the number of hours spent in 2011-12 due to the demand on

ILPS to provide advisory work during that year. Then there was a drop in the number of hours

spent providing strategic advisory work in 2012-13 to just under 1,900 hours but doubled to almost

4,000 hours the following year in 2013-14 compared to the previous year. This rise correlates to

the trend that key informants had noted, namely that the demand for strategic advisory work has

been increasing.

Evaluation Division

24

Figure 2: Total Hours providing Strategic Advisory Work

Source: iCase Data

As part of its project design and implementation function, ILPS is called upon by GAC to conduct

country specific justice sector needs assessments. The purpose of the assessments is to scope out

what viable technical assistance Canada could provide, though they may not automatically lead to

the development of projects. During the evaluation period, ILPS contributed 565.42 hours

conducting needs assessments on Guatemala and Afghanistan based on the iCase data.

4.1.3. Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The Department’s provision of legal technical assistance is consistent with the Government of

Canada’s “whole-of-government” approach of promoting Canada’s democratic values in targeted

countries and regions around the world, and strengthening the rule of law as a means of supporting

social and economic development and security. Under the whole-of-government approach to the

pursuit of Canada’s foreign policy objectives, ILPS is the section within the Department that GAC

would seek advice from on policy matters relating to justice sector reform. ILPS is often invited

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

urs

Fiscal Years

Total Hours providing Strategic Advisory Work2009-2010 to 2013-2014

Evaluation of the


25

and participates in special meetings convened by GAC to discuss Canada’s intervention in conflict

areas. Recent high-profile crises that required ILPS’ involvement include Somalia, Afghanistan,

Libya, and Syria. Therefore, ILPS serves a general advisory and policy-development role on

international justice reform assistance in the Department and within the federal government as a

centre of both theoretical and practical expertise on international legal technical assistance. The

role of ILPS on behalf of the Department is to support the government’s responsibilities in areas

that fall within the mandate of the Minister of Justice, with reference to the Department of Justice

Act8, since the Minister has the general obligation to:

Provide legal advice to the representative of the head of state and to government departments;

Ensure the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law; and

Superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada9.

In addition, documentation indicated that the Department can receive and spend Vote 1

appropriation in order to carry out international legal technical assistance10.

4.1.4. Alignment with Strategic Outcomes of the Department of Justice

During the evaluation period of 2009-10 to 2013-14, the activities of ILPS were aligned with the

Strategic Outcome of ‘A fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system’ by developing and

supporting international justice sector reforms to ensure that Canada’s foreign policy objectives

are aligned with its criminal law policy in protecting Canadian interests and values11. This is

achieved through the provision of technical assistance to foreign countries seeking to reform their

justice systems by promoting foundational Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights

and the rule of law (e.g., technical assistance initiatives in Jamaica, Mexico and the Palestinian

Authority to strengthen their criminal justice systems).

In the last two years of the evaluation period, the activities of ILPS were also aligned with the

second strategic outcome of ‘A federal government supported by high quality legal services’. The

Section also provides advice in the development of Canada’s international justice policies relating

to rule of law reform and justice sector technical assistance especially to GAC.

8 S.2, S.4, and S.5 of the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-2. 9 Ibid, s.4. and s.5 10 Appropriation Act No. 1, 2010-2011, Schedule 1.2. 11 Department of Justice Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2013-2014. Ottawa, p 20.

Evaluation Division

26


4.2.1. Mandate of ILPS

While the ILPS has the mandate to carry out international legal technical assistance, the evaluation

found that it is not well articulated. Key informants suggested that the Section develop a clearly

defined vision and mission statement, and to communicate them across the Department and to

other relevant federal departments and agencies.

4.2.2. Composition of ILPS

Since 2005, ILPS has consisted of a core group of permanent employees and a flexible group of

non-permanent or temporary employees on secondment to the Section from across the Department

and/or other federal departments. This flexible structure of staffing personnel enables the Section

to have staff with specific expertise to address the particular needs of each funded project.

This “core group and temporary group” approach is meant to retain the necessary staffing

flexibility that allows the Section to best match the staffing level with the required expertise of a

project, noting that the needs of each project can be very different. The area of legal expertise that

would be essential in one project may not be as relevant in another project. This approach creates

a flexible capacity to respond to emerging demands and priorities. At the same time, this avoids a

large permanent structure that would be inconsistent with service demands and priorities.

Accordingly, the size of the Section, in terms of FTEs, varies based on the number of projects in

operation at any given time.

At the end of the evaluation period, the Section had consisted of a core group of permanent or

indeterminate staff with a total of nine (9) personnel and made up of five (5) Counsel and four (4)

Administrative Officers; and a non-permanent or flexible group of six (6) Counsel and a Senior

Paralegal.

The evaluation found that the composition of ILPS is appropriate given the nature of its

services/activities. The Section was designed to have a solid core group with permanent staff and

another group of temporary staff based on the service demands of its technical assistance projects.

Evaluation of the


27

4.2.3. Roles and Responsibilities

The evaluation found that there are various types of international legal technical assistance work

undertaken within the Department and that there is no central point of coordination for requests of

this type of assistance. There are other sections within the Department, which provide - mainly

from their existing resources - international legal technical assistance but are generally on an ad

hoc basis and focusing on Canadian law. Whereas, ILPS provides - on a cost-recovery basis - legal

technical assistance to foreign countries wanting to reform their justice sector. According to the

key informants, the technical assistance provided by ILPS is more targeted, funded on a cost-

recovery basis, and tied to specific priorities and outcomes.

The document review indicated that the activities provided by the other sections are generally in

relation to the justice work done within the Department and can contribute to developing the

capacity of the recipient country. For example, the Criminal Law Policy Section delivers

specialized seminars and ad hoc training to other countries on topics such as anti-corruption, cyber-

crime, organized crime and money laundering. In other instances, the assistance supports the work

of the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth Secretariat, or various United Nations

working groups assembled to address issues with respect to international law. In contrast, ILPS

provides more holistic or comprehensive technical assistance to address country-specific justice

sector projects, such as in Mexico, Jamaica and the Palestinian Authority. It was identified in the

evaluation that while the Department is carrying out a wide range of international legal technical

assistance, there is not a central point of coordination of requests within the Department. Though

the evaluation did not identify any specific issues, this fragmentation of international legal

technical assistance activities has the potential to result in duplication of work and inconsistencies.

Some key informants suggested that there is not a strong understanding of the role of ILPS within



areas of the Department. The document review and key informants further noted that the

Department has opportunities in the longer term to build synergies with the work being carried out

in the Department; to use resources more efficiently; and to develop a higher level of coherency

to when and how the Department chooses to engage in legal technical assistance work.

Evaluation Division

28

4.2.4. Performance Monitoring and Reporting Capacity

The Section has a systematic process in place within ILPS for collecting, monitoring and reporting

on performance results of legal technical assistance projects by using GAC’s accountability

reporting system. For monitoring and reporting, the performance results are presented as quarterly,

semi-annual and annual reports that are submitted to GAC. Financial reports are submitted every

three (3) months to GAC then an advance of funds are provided for the projects. For strategic

advisory and outreach activities, there is no systematic and standardized process for monitoring

performance and reporting on its outcomes other than recording the time spent working on these

activities in iCase.

Knowledge Management

There is limited accessibility in the storage of project-related information. For example, key

informants noted that project matter rather than subject matter is been filed internally, but that

it would be beneficial to the Section if the information were also captured by topic or subject

matter to further improve the knowledge management within the Section.

Project Directors have begun to develop comprehensive lists of products finalized from

projects. However, it would be useful to the Section if the information was also captured in a

systematic manner to be useful for future projects of similar nature.

The Section has been providing half-day knowledge management learning series several times

a year for ILPS staff, and twice a year information-sharing sessions for the Department’s

counsel outside of ILPS. These learning sessions have helped integrate and share knowledge

across the Policy Sector.

For strategic advisory and outreach activities, a standardized approach can be developed in

iCase such as on the type of strategic advice or outreach activity, to whom it is provided to, the

outcome of that activity, and a list of any reference documents.

4.3. Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes

According to the Treasury Board’s 2009 Policy on Evaluation, evaluating performance involves

assessing effectiveness, as well as efficiency and economy. The subsections below discuss the

effectiveness of ILPS – in other words, the extent to which the Section is achieving its expected

outcomes.

Evaluation of the


29

The purpose of this evaluation is not to assess the individual projects but to identify the extent the

Section has achieved its expected outcomes of: i) transferring knowledge of Canadian justice

systems principles, structures processes and experiences to recipient countries in order to assist

them in strengthening their justice systems; ii) enhancing the capacity of recipient countries to

deliver fair and accessible justice.

4.3.1. Project Design and Implementation Function of Legal Technical Assistance Projects

ILPS developed and implemented seven (7) new legal technical assistance projects in five (5)

recipient countries namely Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, Turks and Caicos Islands, Mexico and

Jamaica during the evaluation period (2009-10 – 2013-14). Of these, five projects have been

completed and the remaining two projects have been extended. The types of legal technical

assistance projects implemented varied in nature and duration. Many of the projects focused on

needs of fragile states or dealing with current, recent or potential crises. These types of projects

address institutional capacity, and legal and judicial system foundations by strengthening justice

ministries; advising and offering policy support on anti-corruption measures; developing legal

resource centres; and strengthening legislative drafting functions. Refer to Table 4 for a summary

of the legal technical assistance projects.

The evaluation found that the Section achieved its expected immediate outcome of transferring

knowledge of Canadian justice system principles, structures, processes and experiences to

recipient countries to assist them in strengthening their justice systems (Appendix A: Logic

Model). Across all of the legal technical assistance projects delivered, there was a high level of

knowledge transfer. Examples of knowledge transfer across the projects include:

education and training of judges;

local experts working alongside the beneficiaries, to emphasize knowledge transfer between

the specialist and employee;

local staff benefitting input from Canadian experts who produced several detailed reports to

guide organizational capacity;

research missions of prosecutors to Canada to participate in various learning exchanges with

officials from JUS, PPSC, provincial governments, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the

judiciary, and to observe criminal trials. These exchanges provided a valuable opportunity for

knowledge transfer and sharing of best practices;

Evaluation Division

30

delivery of documents such as legislative drafting manuals; and

observe how case flow management works in Canada.






In terms of length of time, the evaluation found that long-term commitment of a project is critical

to allow an appropriate amount of time to execute it. This is particularly the case when providing

technical assistance involving institution building, transforming an organization and changing

peoples’ perception. This was the case for both the Palestinian Authority Project, which was

initially planned to be a 5-year project but was extended to 7 years; and the Jamaica Project, which

was initially planned to be a 4-year project but was recently extended to 8 years.

To demonstrate the benefit of long-term commitment, case disposition rates in the Palestinian

Authority Project were improving and indicative of a demonstration of efficiencies in the legal

system. Judges had indicated that after 3 years of the project, prosecutors were coming to court

more prepared and confident. In year 5 of the project, results of surveys conducted with the judges

and lawyers indicated that there was significant increase in the level of prosecutors’ knowledge.

In addition, survey results indicated that public perception of integrity and independence of the

public prosecution had increased significantly. There was also a significant improvement in the

perception of judges, lawyers and non-state actors in the competence and capabilities of

prosecution services.

On the other hand, key informants from the Education and Training of Judges component of the

Mexico project indicated that their project was short, when compared to the needs of the Mexican

government and that more training could have been provided on judicial administration. They

thought that it could have had a more sustainable impact if the training was delivered on a national

level while switching from an inquisitorial judicial system to an adversarial system.


important to tailoring a technical assistance initiative to their context. This understanding of the

needs of the beneficiaries stems from the length of time the project is in operation and interacting

with the beneficiaries on a regular basis. Timing and sequencing of project activities are also key

factors to successfully execute a project.

Evaluation of the


31








as well as challenges or lessons learned through the two case studies:

Palestinian Authority Project of strengthening the organizational, operational and professional

capacities of the Office of the Attorney General and the Public Prosecution Services

(OAG/PP); and

Mexico Project12 of preparing the judicial and legal systems for the transfer from the

inquisitorial judicial system to the adversarial judicial system13.

Promising practices

Having a Field Director and Deputy Director located on-site and in the same building as the

beneficiaries of the technical assistance project was useful and critical to the success,

legitimacy and credibility of the project. As demonstrated by the Palestinian Authority project,

the co-location of the Field Director and Deputy Director within the same office building as

12 The Mexico Project had consisted of three sub-projects namely:

1) Education and Training for Judges;

2) National/State Licensing and Education for Lawyers; and

3) Harmonization of Criminal Legislation and Strengthening of Prosecution Services. 13 Differentiation between the inquisitorial judicial system and the adversarial judicial system.

An inquisitorial judicial system is based on the notion that an independent officer of the state, whether a judge

or prosecutor, is the best person to seek the truth. Proceedings are conducted largely by paper and behind

closed doors, with the judge issuing a verdict based on all the evidence that has been collected. In addition,

police does not have to follow the same strict procedures of gathering evidence as in an adversarial system –

meaning that evidence is considered admissible no matter how it is obtained.

An adversarial judicial system is based on the notion that judges are apt to lose their neutrality if they

investigate the case they are trying. Instead, the truth is most likely to surface where opposing counsel present

their cases orally in court. In doing so, each counsel tries to convince an impartial judge or jury with no prior

knowledge of the case that his or her version of events is true, while trying to cast doubt on the other side’s

evidence to a judge or jury and let them decide the outcome. Proceedings in an adversarial system must be

open and transparent, inspiring public confidence and reducing fear of corruption or unfairness. (Source Globe

and Mail. Canada and Mexico, partners in the pursuit of justice. David Johnston, Governor-General of Canada.

December 17, 2012.)

Evaluation Division

32

the OAG/PP created opportunities for daily interactions with the Attorney General and the

Chief Prosecutor. This sustained field presence and the frequent interactions between the

project and the beneficiaries resulted in a level of trust and rapport to allow frank conversations

when required and improve working relationships. In addition, it allowed for better

communication, which enabled the transfer of information and knowledge. According to the

key informants interviewed for this project, having a field presence meant additional costs but

is important to project outcomes.

Planning the project in a holistic fashion by ensuring that components of the project

complement each other was beneficial to the overall project. The evaluation found that it was

especially important to ensure that the infrastructure was in place at the front-end, before

providing the training.

Hiring local specialists who have expertise in an area of focus for the project was beneficial.

These specialists worked alongside the local prosecution service employees to increase the

capacity of the prosecution service in selected areas of activity. The local specialists were hired

to perform a variety of positions including policy analysis, knowledge management, training

and professional development, information technology, human resources, gender analysis,

communication and outreach, and facilities management. Additionally, service data clerks

were hired to archive files and compile data for retrieval of official documents. Another

purpose of hiring the highly qualified Palestinian specialists was to have the local prosecution

service employees’ work alongside them, therefore, reinforcing knowledge transfer between

the specialist and employee. This arrangement proved to be very productive in terms of

providing daily interactions between employees and experienced professionals in their field.



and at the same time improve the efficiency of their respective projects. These implementing

agencies included the European Union, the American Bureau of International Narcotics and

Law Enforcement Affairs, United Nations Development Programme and Justice Canada. The

Field Director of the Palestinian Authority Project had chaired the committee.

The Mexico project included technical exchanges or study tours to Canada, and judges training

judges to transfer knowledge of the Canadian justice system, principles, structures and

processes. These technical exchanges to Canada provided the opportunity to consolidate both

theoretical and skills-based learning about the adversarial judicial system and to observe

firsthand the skills required for a judge. When the judges visited the Canadian courts, the

principles and processes that were discussed became “real” and more understandable. The

Evaluation of the


33

project reports noted the importance of observing the actual adversarial court proceedings, and

that although the exchanges to Canada can be costly it is very valuable since it is difficult to

replicate the learning in non-Canadian environments. The participants also had the opportunity

to interact and speak with the Canadian judges before and after observing an adversarial court

in session. Similarly, key informants noted that it was useful for participants in the Jamaica

Project to tour the Canadian courts, interact with the judges, tour the court libraries and observe

their services in operation, and to observe how case flow management works.

The Education and Training of Judges’ component of the Mexico project also had developed

a core of judge trainers who had beginners’ proficiency in skills-based judicial education. The

pedagogy of skills-based training and judge-to-judge methodologies were used to train judges

and, at the same time, train the Mexican judicial trainers to develop courses. These judge

trainers were able to develop further courses for their states and region after having gone

through the cycle twice. This approach was specifically adapted to the Mexican culture and

social realities. This concept was applied as a pilot project whereby over 120 judicial officials

were trained in skills development in the five participating states of Tabasco, Chiapas,

Quintana Roo, Campeche and Yucatan where the Education and Training of Judges component

was taking place. As one judicial key informant indicated, the judges training judges enabled

a healthy understanding and better comprehension of the information. The following quotation

also reflects the opinion of key informants:

"What is interesting is that the participants themselves developed their own training

program according to their own needs, and they will now be responsible for

training the next group of educators, which will result in a chain to improve and

strengthen the training of operators of the new justice system in our country" stated

the Deputy Director of Training of the Technical Secretariat of the Coordinating

Council for Implementation of the Reform of the Criminal Justice System14.

The flexible manner in which the training and discussions were presented and at the same time

not impose the views of the Canadian delivery partners on the participants. Instead, the

approach taken was to share the Canadian experts’ knowledge and experience and to guide the

participants as appropriate in making their own decisions about how their system will function

for them.

14 Media Report – Closing of the “Education and Training for Judges” training program developed by Mexico and

Canada. Source: Justice in Yucatan, October – December 2012. (translated from Spanish to English)

Evaluation Division

34

The case studies also demonstrated that partnerships included in the delivery of technical

assistance have increased the awareness of the expertise of Canadian delivery partners while

supporting knowledge transfer. For example, two Canadian delivery partners, the National

Judicial Institute (NJI) and the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada

(FJA) shared in the training of the Mexican judges. Prior to this project in Mexico, both the

NJI and FJA, and the Canadian judiciary were not well known. As a result of the Mexico

Project, Canada is now recognized for its contribution towards judicial reform.

It was also noted that the partnerships and good relations established during this project had

effects beyond the life of the Mexico Project. For example, NJI was approached for the

possibility of training judges in Chile. FJA had co-hosted a national conference on Judicial

Independence, Ethics and Accountability (June 11-12, 2012 in Mexico City) along with the

Superior Court of the Federal District and with the Institute of the Supreme Court of Mexico

for Jurisprudential Research and Promotion of Judicial Ethics. The conference proved to be

positive for building relationships for possible future interactions. For example, while on a

personal visit to Canada a Chief Justice from Mexico approached the FJA to learn more about

court administration and the Canadian judicial system.

The Palestinian Authority Project also had partnerships with local and regional organizations

in the field to enhance knowledge transfer. For example, the Faculty of Law of the An-Najah

National University in the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Judicial Institute, and the

Judicial Institute of Jordan, served as sources of knowledge during the life of the project. Their

expertise extends beyond the project, along with other organizations including PPSC and JUS.

Challenges/Lessons Learned

The Palestinian Authority Project experienced implementation challenges with contracting local

staff. This caused significant delays and affected implementation schedules of the project for

almost one year. A solution was found midway during the second year of the project with the

UNOPS agreeing to undertake the local procurement and contracting. In so doing, they assumed

responsibility for contracting various consultants, specialists, institutions and related materials to

assist in the delivery of the legal technical assistance component of the project. In so doing, the

UNOPS expanded its involvement in the project beyond its initial procurement of refurbishing the

OAG, which was the first phase of the Palestinian Authority Project. The evaluation noted that the

lack of clarity on the authority to spend allocated funds relating to the interpretation of guidelines

led to the confusion and delays in the early implementation phase of this project. A great deal of

effort, assessment of options and re-scoping were required to get the project back on track.

Evaluation of the


35

Another challenge that had been identified was the capacity of the recipient institution to

participate in the many training activities. Given their regular workload the recipients, in this case

the prosecutors, had limited capacity in terms of numbers, time and skills to participate in the many

training and technical missions provided. While this issue may have been a result of the

compressed timeframe, there was insufficient information available to make a clear determination.

However, despite the few challenges experienced by the Palestinian Authority Project, key

informants commented on the successes of the Project and the recognition it has attained. This

project has raised the profile of Canada. At the macro level, the project has been very successful

in terms of project delivery based on the feedback received from the regular visits to the project

site and the discussions with the beneficiaries, the OAG/PP. They appreciated the assistance

provided in the early stages of the project especially the refurbishing and professionalizing the

institution. The building now has a professional appearance, which in turn has improved the

perception of the general public and increased their level of trust. This has been recognized by the

police, the courts, and civil society groups (human rights groups and non-governmental

organizations) as having a positive effect on the rule of law in the West Bank. From the multiple

lines of evidence, it was noted that it is very encouraging to observe this reaction within the first

four years of the project. Furthermore, Canada has been recognized for taking a holistic approach

for refurbishing the infrastructure of the OAG/PP and then providing the technical assistance. The

ILPS designed this holistic intervention and it is seen as a best practice among other donors. In

addition, the accomplishment of the Project has increased the visibility of Canada in the justice

sector.

4.3.2. Strategic Advice and Outreach Function

In response to an identified need for strategic advice, the mandate of ILPS was broadened to

provide this service. Within the Department and across the federal government, ILPS functions as

a centre for both theoretical and practical expertise on international legal technical assistance.

Under the whole-of-government approach to the pursuit of Canada’s foreign policy objectives

GAC regularly turns to ILPS as the section within the Department to seek advice on policy matters

relating to justice reform in a foreign country. In this instance, ILPS is often invited to participate

in special meetings convened by GAC to discuss Canada’s intervention in conflict or priority

country areas. High profile crises that had required ILPS’s involvement include Afghanistan,

Somalia, Libya and Syria. ILPS often participates on a number of interdepartmental committees

Evaluation Division

36

and working groups led by GAC such as the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force Advisory

Board.

ILPS also supports the Minister and Deputy Minister on matters relating to international justice

and security. This includes providing strategic policy advice relating to international justice sector

assistance and capacity building to support the Deputy Minister Committee on Conflict and

Fragility, the Commonwealth Law Ministers’ meetings, the Meeting of the Quintet of Attorney

Generals, the Organization of American States’ meetings of Ministers of Justice or Attorney

Generals of the Americas.

Advice from ILPS has also been sought by other government departments such as Environment

Canada for strategic advice on wildlife trafficking. Interviews with other government departments

found that they are very satisfied with the strategic advice and the level of involvement of the

Section. From the nature of strategic advice provided, it can be determined that it has enhanced

the knowledge of the members of inter-departmental committees and other government

departments.

To inform its strategic advisory responsibilities, the Section engages in bilateral and trilateral

information sharing meetings with counterparts in foreign countries to share experiences on

matters relating to the provision of technical assistance to developing countries. The Canada-UK-

US Trilateral forum on international justice sector reform was established and meetings occur

every 12-18 months. The purpose of the trilateral forums are for both advancing strategic thinking

and sharing project information to avoid any duplication of work among the counterparts working

in the same country, share best practices and lessons learned, and to stay current on emerging

issues. The key informants involved in the trilateral forums indicated that they have found the

information and knowledge exchanges to be very helpful in terms of understanding what the allies’

priorities are. These forums have allowed ILPS’ work to remain relevant, coordinated and

effective. Furthermore, they support Canada’s capacity to participate strategically in foreign policy

and international development justice sector issues.

To further share information and advance innovative thinking, in 1999 ILPS began engaging with

CBA, a non-governmental organization, by organizing and coordinating annual CBA conference

workshops on international justice sector development. Apart from its purpose of immediate

information exchange and knowledge transfer, the workshops are used by ILPS to maintain and

expand its network of contacts in the international development community. The information

gathered and the relations developed at its annual events enables ILPS to stay attuned to best

practices, identify organizations that could participate in delivery of legal technical assistance, and

Evaluation of the


37

highlight its own achievements. In addition to organizing and coordinating the annual workshops,

ILPS is able to inform the workshop agenda to align with the Government of Canada and the

Department’s interests, therefore, providing a forum for advancing the Government of Canada

foreign policy priorities.

4.4. Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

The Treasury Board’s 2009 Policy on Evaluation defines efficiency as the production of “a greater

level of output…with the same level of input or, a lower level of input with the same level of

output,” and economy as the achievement of expected results using the minimum amount of

resources required. Applying these definitions to the work of ILPS, an analysis of efficiency and

economy considers the ability of the Section to manage costs while maintaining its activities.

4.4.1. Human Resources

The human resources organizational structure of ILPS consists of a core group of permanent or

indeterminate employees and a flexible group of non-permanent or temporary employees on

secondment to ILPS. At the time of the evaluation, the group consisted of 16 personnel of which

nine permanent positions were staffed with a mix of four administrative staff and five counsel. The

Section had an additional seven flexible positions with a mix of counsel and other specializations.

Based on the funding and needs of the legal technical assistance projects, ILPS draws on other

experts from across the Department and/or departments, or contract experts outside the federal

government. The experts come to ILPS on secondment for a specified period of time to work solely

on a legal technical assistance project. This organizational structure of core and flexible groups is

considered cost-efficient due to the flexibility of the human resources structure responding to the

needs of technical assistance projects and to the provision of strategic advisory work. A few

interviewees also mentioned that some counsel from the core group are perceived to do more senior

level of work, which could be considered an efficiency.







Evaluation Division

38

In terms of the level of effort during the evaluation period, counsel (LA-00, LA-01 and LA-2A15)

generally spent slightly more time (53%) working on legal technical assistance projects compared

to the senior counsel (LA-2B and LA-3A) who tend to focus mainly on strategic advisory work

(48%) (Figure 3). It is also economical to have more counsel working on projects and the senior

counsel undertaking the strategic advisory work.

Figure 3: Comparisons of Level of Effort by Categories of Counsel spent on Projects and Strategic Advisory

Work

Source: iCase Data



differentiate between legal technical assistance project work and strategic advisory work. For

example, a large portion of the Section’s technical assistance project work was entered into more

than one category (i.e., corporate, advisory, general, policy) in iCase and which did not distinguish

the nature of the service provided. Similarly, the strategic advisory work was entered into more

15 Treasury Board approved a new classification for legal counsel (Law Practitioner or LP), which became effective

on January 4, 2014. However, as the LA classification was applicable to the period covered by the evaluation it is

used in this report.

53%

11%

36%37%

48%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Counsel Senior Counsel Temporary Staff - Counsel

Leve

l of

Effo

rt (

in p

erc

en

tage

)

Category of Counsel

Projects Strategic Advice

Evaluation of the


39

than one category in iCase and was not fully descriptive of the nature of its advisory work. It was

also especially difficult to determine with full accuracy what was strategic advisory work.

Although beyond the scope of this evaluation, the Department introduced the National

Timekeeping Protocol in April 2015. It is expected that compliance with this new time keeping

standard will address some of the issues in iCase identified in the evaluation.

4.4.2. Financial Resources

ILPS underwent a program review in fiscal year 2011-12. Due to the Deficit Reduction Action

Plan review in that year, the decision was made that the Section will operate on a full cost-recovery

funding model on the basis of funds generated from providing legal technical assistance activities

through projects to recipient countries, and therefore funded by GAC. The cost-recovery approach

was implemented progressively from fiscal year 2012-13.

Key informants identified challenges using this type of funding model including staff retention, an

ability to respond quickly and effectively to requests, and in securing the necessary expertise for

the Section.

The evaluation found that GAC requests services from ILPS for legal technical assistance and

strategic advisory work as part of a whole-of-government approach on matters of foreign policy

and international development. ILPS is fully dependent on GAC approaching the Section with a

request to develop and implement a project. Hence, ILPS is tied to GAC’s funding model and key

informants pointed out that it is challenging to manage without continuity of funding particularly

covering the salaries of the permanent staff. GAC also seeks the assistance of ILPS to conduct

justice sector needs assessment in foreign countries to inform GAC’s foreign policy or project

development decisions. It was noted that GAC can be reluctant to cover the associated salary and

other costs based on the assumption that ILPS has A-Base funding similar to models used in other

countries. For example, the US Department of Justice pays the salaries of the United States

Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training

(US-OPDAT) (counterparts of ILPS), and other government partners will fund any incremental

activity costs. At the United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service (UK-CPS) International

Division (another counterpart of ILPS), salaries are funded by other government partners in the

same way as the work of the ILPS is funded by GAC. However, in the case of any shortfall, these

salaries are absorbed by CPS allowing for a stable base of expertise.

Evaluation Division

40

4.4.3. Factors influencing the ability of ILPS to provide its activities efficiently

Despite the efficiencies in the organization structure, the evaluation found that there are factors

influencing the Section’s ability to do its activities efficiently. These include the implications of

cost recovery, shortage of administrative support, travel constraints, entering into international

contracts for the technical assistance projects, and knowledge sharing within ILPS.

Key informants identified that by being on a cost-recovery funding model and dependent on

receiving funding to conduct technical assistance projects present challenges for the Section in

terms of staff retention, securing corporate memory and capacity building within the Section. The

key informants further noted that there is a low incentive for core staff to commit and there are

insecure feelings among the staff due to long-term job instability. The cost recovery only covers

legal technical assistance project activities and not strategic advisory work or conducting needs

assessment of potential projects that may include travel.

GAC regularly requests advice from ILPS on justice sector reform policy matters. Given that ILPS

does not receive additional funding for strategic advisory work, it can sometimes pose a resource

challenge for the Section to provide timely, high quality advice.

Some key informants perceived there to be a shortage of administrative support within the Section.

Consequently, counsel often have to complete administrative work, such as travel arrangements,



The evaluation found that there are travel constraints due to the centralization of administrative

processes and reduced flexibility. In addition, the increased level of approvals for travel can be

time-consuming and reduce work efficiencies. To streamline the approach for approvals key

informants suggested exploring the use of blanket approvals, which may expedite project-related

travel.

ILPS has had challenges procuring international contracts for renting office space, buying

equipment or hiring local staff in the recipient country, which has led to long delays in project

implementation. To resolve this issue, GAC identified an effective mechanism of having a third

party or external organization procure the necessary international contracts. For example, the

UNOPS hired local staff in the recipient country to carry out certain identified activities for the

Palestinian Authority Project. However, there is an administrative fee associated with this service

Evaluation of the


41

that becomes an extra cost to the project, which has strained the relationship between ILPS and

GAC, as it reduces the funds supporting project operations.

The final factor influencing the ability of ILPS to provide its activities efficiently was the limited

knowledge sharing between ILPS project staff. Suggestions put forward were to share relevant

templates and to have regular knowledge sessions for the Section such as on a quarterly basis, and

to strengthen the knowledge management capacity.

43

5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

This section of the report provides conclusions based on the findings presented in Section 4. The

information is structured along the main evaluation issues, and recommendations are included as

applicable.

5.1. Relevance

Responding to Federal Priorities

The activities of ILPS support the Government of Canada’s international priorities relating to

justice sector reform through the “whole-of-government” approach for the advancement of

Canada’s foreign policy and development assistance agenda. The federal government supports

international justice sector development promoting Canadian values, the rule of law to protect the

security and safety of Canadians at home and abroad, and in supporting economic development.

Continued Need for ILPS

Canada’s extensive experience in the rule of law is often recognized and respected by many foreign

countries for its assistance to countries, ministries and institutions to improve their legal systems

and enhance security and rule of law for that country’s citizens. Canada is well positioned to

provide legal technical assistance abroad because it has an advanced justice system along with the

benefits of having both common law and civil law traditions.


expertise and competencies, the credibility, and the experience to develop and manage legal

technical assistance projects to foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice system.



the resources nor the expertise to upgrade their legal system.

Evaluation Division

44

Demand

ILPS has designed and implemented seven new legal technical assistance projects during the

evaluation period, of which two of these projects have been extended and the remaining five

projects have been completed. The total time spent by ILPS executing technical assistance projects

between 2009-10 and 2013-14, ranged from approximately 12,000 hours to 33,000 hours, or 67%

of the total time spent undertaking ILPS functions.

ILPS has also been involved in providing legal policy development and strategic advice to other


reform and assistance, and the integration of the access to justice and the rule of law. The time

spent by ILPS researching and providing strategic advice ranged from nearly 1,900 hours to almost

4,600 hours between 2009-10 and 2013-14. This time spent on strategic advisory work accounts

for approximately 11% of the total time spent undertaking ILPS functions.

Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The Department’s provision of legal technical assistance is consistent with the Government of

Canada’s “whole-of-government” approach of promoting Canada’s democratic values in targeted

countries and regions around the world, and strengthening the rule of law as a means of supporting

social and economic development and security. Under the whole-of-government approach, ILPS

serves a general advisory and policy-development role in the Department and within the federal

government as a centre of both theoretical and practical expertise on international legal technical

assistance.


Mandate of ILPS

The evaluation found that the mandate of the Section is not well articulated or well known. Key

informants therefore, suggested that the Section develop a clearly defined vision and mission

statement and to communicate them across the Department and to other relevant federal

departments and agencies.

Evaluation of the


45

Composition of ILPS

The Section consists of a core group of permanent employees and a flexible group of non-

permanent or temporary employees on secondment to the Section from across the Department

and/or other federal departments. This flexible structure of staffing process provides the Section

with specific expertise to address particular needs of funded projects and the capacity to respond

to emerging demands and priorities.

Roles and Responsibilities


undertaken within the Department and that there is not a central point of coordination for requests

of this type of assistance. Other sections within the Department provide - generally out of their

existing resources - international legal technical assistance on an ad hoc basis and focus on

Canadian law. Whereas, ILPS provides - on a cost-recovery basis - legal technical assistance to

foreign countries wanting to reform their justice sector, and consequently projects are more

targeted, comprehensive, and tied to specific priorities and outcomes.







Performance Monitoring and Reporting Capacity

The Section has a systematic process in place within ILPS for collecting, monitoring and reporting

on performance results of legal technical assistance projects by using GAC’s reporting system.

However, for strategic advisory and outreach activities, there is no systematic and standardized

process for monitoring performance and reporting on its outcomes other than recording the time

spent working on these activities in iCase.

Evaluation Division

46

5.3. Performance

5.3.1. Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Project Design and Implementation Function of Legal Technical Assistance Projects

During the evaluation period, ILPS developed and implemented seven new legal technical

assistance projects in five recipient countries namely Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, Turks and

Caicos Islands, Mexico and Jamaica. Of these, five projects have been completed and the

remaining two projects have been extended. The types of technical assistance projects

implemented varied in nature and duration. These types of projects address institutional capacity,

and legal and judicial system foundations by strengthening justice ministries; advising and offering

policy support on anti-corruption measures; developing legal resource centres; and strengthening

legislative drafting functions. Across all of the technical assistance projects delivered, there was a

high level of knowledge transfer.







important for tailoring a legal technical assistance initiative to their context. This understanding of

the needs of the beneficiaries stems from the length of time the project is in operation and

interacting with the beneficiaries on a regular basis. Timing and sequencing of project activities

are also key factors to successfully execute a project.







Evaluation of the


47


by using the two case studies, the Palestinian Authority Project and the Mexico Project, which had

three sub-projects.

Promising practices included:

Having a Field Director and Deputy Director co-located with the beneficiaries of the technical

assistance project was useful and critical to the success, legitimacy and credibility of the

project.

Planning the project in a holistic fashion was beneficial to the overall project, ensuring the

appropriate sequencing of activities.

Hiring local specialists to work alongside the local employees was beneficial in order to

reinforce knowledge transfer between specialist and employee.



and at the same time improve the efficiency of their respective projects.

Study tours to Canada provided an opportunity for judges to consolidate both theoretical and

skills-based learning about the adversarial judicial system and to observe firsthand the skills

required for a judge under this type of judicial system. When the judges visited the Canadian

courts, the principles and processes that were discussed became “real” and more

understandable. Although the learning exchanges to Canada can be costly it is very valuable

since it is difficult to replicate the learning in non-Canadian environments.

Partnerships with local and regional organizations in the recipient country also contributed to

the transfer of knowledge.

There were a few challenges during the implementation phase:

The contracting of local staff, which caused significant delays and affected implementation

schedules of the project.

The capacity of the recipient institution to participate in the training activities. The recipients

were busy with their daily work and there was a limited capacity in terms of numbers, time

and skills to participate in the many training and technical missions provided. While this issue

may have been a result of the compressed timeframe, there was insufficient information

available to make a clear determination.

Evaluation Division

48

Strategic advice and outreach

ILPS is the Section within the Department that is sought by GAC to provide strategic advice on

policy matters relating to justice sector reform in a foreign country. The Section also participates

in interdepartmental committees and working groups to discuss Canada’s intervention in conflict

or priority country areas. In order to inform its strategic advisory responsibilities, ILPS engages in

trilateral forums with the UK and the US to share experiences, stay current on emerging issues and

to avoid any duplication of work. As part of its outreach function at the CBA annual conferences,

ILPS organizes and coordinates annual workshops on international justice sector development.

Besides its purpose of information exchange, ILPS creates and maintains a network of contacts in

the international development community and advances Canada’s foreign policy priorities and

international development justice sector.

5.3.2. Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

The human resources organizational structure of ILPS consists of a core group of permanent

employees and a flexible group of temporary employees on secondment to ILPS. Based on the

funding and needs of the legal technical assistance projects, ILPS draws on other experts from

across the Department and/or departments, or contract experts outside the federal government. The

experts come to ILPS on secondment for a specified period of time to work solely on a technical

assistance project. This organizational structure of core and flexible groups is considered efficient

due to the flexibility of the human resources structure responding to the needs of technical

assistance projects and the provision of strategic advisory work.







In terms of the level of effort, counsel (LA-00, LA-01 and LA-2A) tend to work more on the legal

technical assistance projects and the senior counsel (LA-2B and LA-3A) focused more on the

strategic advisory work.

Evaluation of the


49




ILPS underwent a program review in fiscal year 2011-12. The decision was then made that the

Section will operate on a full cost-recovery funding model on the basis of funds generated from

providing legal technical assistance activities through projects to recipient countries, and therefore

funded by GAC. The cost-recovery approach was implemented progressively from fiscal year

2012-13. Key informants identified challenges with this type of funding model resulting from gaps

between projects, staff retention, and the ability to respond quickly and effectively to requests, and

securing the necessary expertise for the Section.

In spite of the efficiencies of the Section’s organizational structure, the evaluation found that there

are factors influencing the Section’s ability to operate efficiently that include the following:

Implications of cost recovery thereby influencing staff retention, securing corporate memory

and capacity building within the Section. In addition, the cost recovery only covers for legal

technical assistance project activities and not for strategic advisory work or conducting needs

assessments of potential projects.

Shortage of administrative support, which in turn affects the efficiency of the counsel’s work

in that they often have to complete administrative work such as travel arrangements,



Travel constraints due to the centralization of administrative processes and reduced flexibility.

Challenges procuring international contracts for renting office space, buying equipment, or

hiring local staff in the recipient country has led to long delays in project implementation.

Limited knowledge sharing between ILPS project staff has influenced the planning and

development of new project activities.

5.4. Recommendations and Management Response

Below presents the recommendations and management response.

Evaluation Division

50

Issue 1: Communication

Mandate of ILPS

The evaluation found that while ILPS has the mandate to carry out legal technical assistance, it is

not well articulated or well known. Key informants suggested that the Section develop a clearly

defined vision and mission statement and to communicate them across the Department and to other

relevant federal departments and agencies.

Roles and Responsibilities


undertaken within the Department, and that there is no central point of coordination for requests

of this type of assistance. Other sections within the Department provide – generally out of their

existing resources - international legal technical assistance on an ad hoc basis and focus on

Canadian law. Whereas, ILPS provides – on a cost-recovery basis - legal technical assistance to

foreign countries wanting to reform their justice sector, and consequently projects are more

targeted, comprehensive, and tied to specific priorities and outcomes.







Recommendation 1:

In line with the findings, it is recommended that the ILPS clearly define its vision and

mission statement and communicate them as well as its roles and responsibilities to

relevant sections within the Department including the Legal Services Units, the Criminal

Law Policy Section, the Contracting and Materiel Management Division, the

International Assistance Group, and to other federal departments and agencies, such as

pertinent sections within Global Affairs Canada.

Evaluation of the


51

Management Response:

We agree with the recommendation. We consider that, in addition to developing a vision and

mission statement, it would be useful to take a number of measures to clarify ILPS’ role.

Issue 2: Knowledge Management







In addition, it was identified that limited knowledge sharing between ILPS project staff was

identified as a factor influencing the ability of ILPS to provide its activities in terms of efficiently

planning and developing new legal technical assistance projects.

Recommendation 2:

It is recommended that the ILPS improve its internal knowledge management and

transfer capabilities to retain corporate memory and to strengthen its capacity to plan

and develop technical assistance projects.


We agree with the recommendation.

ILPS has accumulated over the years a good quantity of information. However, this

information has remained largely unprocessed, thus generating limited usable knowledge.

Correcting the situation is therefore not simply a matter of transferring knowledge but also of

generating it.

This requires dealing with two separate but closely linked categories of information:

tangible information on substantive matters which is recorded in written documents; and

intangible information on law and development flowing from the section's experience in

project design and implementation.

Evaluation Division

52

Issue 3: iCase Data




Recommendation 3:

It is recommended that ILPS apply a standardized approach to recording data in iCase

in order to improve the overall data integrity, therefore making it possible to assist with

workflow tracking, to measure and compare the demands for its services, and to analyze

trends over time.


We agree with the recommendation. Moving forward, files will be created so that the time

spent on technical assistance can be distinguished from the time spent on strategic advice.

Issue 4: International Contracting

ILPS has experienced challenges procuring international contracts for renting office space, buying

equipment or hiring local staff in the recipient country, which has led to long delays in project

implementation.

Recommendation 4:

It is recommended that ILPS initiate discussions with the Contracting and Materiel

Management Division to explore options for international contracting.


We agree with the recommendation and will undertake the following steps:

Develop document describing the nature of the contracting issue;

Hold meeting with JUS’ contracting operations section; and

Develop internal note summarizing the outcome of the discussions and identifying follow-

up measures required, if any.

Appendix A:

Logic Model

55

Logic Model

This section provides a description of the logic model of ILPS by linking the activities/outputs of

the Section with its intended outcomes. The logic model is a systematic way to illustrate the

relationship between the planned activities of ILPS and their expected results.

1. Activities and Outputs

The Section serves two main functions: i) project design and implementation, and ii) strategic

advice and outreach.

1.1 Strategic advice and outreach function

Research and development: The ILPS conducts research and prepares in-depth studies and

discussion papers that help the Department identify trends in foreign policy and assist other

government departments in developing strategic approaches to the delivery of justice sector

activities. For example, at the request of GAC, the Section conducts research on legal, social,

economic and political issues of relevance in a particular foreign country. Outputs: research

papers, briefing notes, memos, presentations, meetings, networking, web site.

Strategic advice: The ILPS plays a key role in supporting the preparation of legal policy advice to

help inform the Department's position on the viability of the justice sector involvement in a foreign

country, as well as the nature, scope and relevance of any proposed legal technical assistance

activities in light of Canada's foreign policy objectives. In carrying out this work, the ILPS

provides advice to senior management on positions to be taken on issues to be discussed at DM or

ADM level interdepartmental meetings. The Section provides suggestions on legal technical

assistance matters to other departments and agencies through participation in a variety of

interdepartmental committees and groups. It also contributes to an integrated approach on

international justice sector matters by participating on the Policy Sector International Strategic

Framework Committee. Outputs: discussion papers, briefing notes, memos, presentations,

meetings.

Outreach: The ILPS participates in bilateral or multilateral information-sharing meetings on

international justice sector reform, including regular trilateral sessions with the US-OPDAT, the

UK-CPS (International Division) and Ministry of Justice, and in Commonwealth rule of law

meetings. Finally, ILPS organizes and co-chairs the annual CBA/Justice Canada Workshop on

Evaluation Division

56

International Development, and makes presentations to the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

Outputs: presentations, product database, meetings, networking, web site and database.

1.2 Project design and implementation function

Project design: The ILPS first conduct assessments of the justice system of foreign countries

requesting assistance, and identifies possible subject areas in which Canada could provide

assistance to these countries. ILPS then identifies on a preliminary basis the source of expertise on

the subject areas in which assistance could be provided and estimates the cost of the assistance that

the Department could provide. On the basis of the assessment ILPS then develops, in cooperation

with the funding agency, a project proposal that:

describes the subject areas in which assistance could be provided;

describes the way in which assistance would be provided;

provides a detailed budget;

explains the way in which financial matters would be managed;

delineates the responsibilities of the various organizations involved in the project;

establishes a project management structure; and

defines the Department’s reporting obligations.

Project implementation: The ILPS conducts research on specific justice sector matters related to

the project activities and develops background papers, discussion papers, option charts and other

documents necessary to guide the recipient country's decision-making process on specific justice

sector reform matters. ILPS will plan and carry out fact-finding missions in the recipient country

on contemplated reforms and deliver, with the support of relevant experts (either internal or

external), technical assistance to the recipient country on specific justice sector issues.

Project reporting and information sharing: The ILPS team responsible for a given project has to

report regularly to the funding agency on the progress of the initiative. ILPS teams working on

projects in various countries will also share information and knowledge amongst themselves to

avoid duplication and leverage lessons learned. In addition, project information is shared as

appropriate with other implementing agencies active in the recipient country, with a view to avoid

duplication and build synergies where possible.

Evaluation of the


57

Project management: The Director General and the Director of the ILPS oversee the broader

strategic, human resources and financial management aspects of all program delivery activities.

The Section’s employees provide support to the projects, which can include delegated oversight

of the contracting processes, preparation of travel arrangements and related approval requests,

drafting of Memorandum of Understanding with Government of Canada partners, and regular

input into the development of program activity work plans, budget forecasts and actual expenditure

reports. Outputs: needs assessments, project proposals, administrative arrangements,

implementation plans, budget, consultation summaries, comparative charts, research papers,

manuals, guidelines and reports.

2. Immediate Outcomes

Enhanced knowledge in the Canadian federal system of current and emerging international

justice sector development matters.

The ILPS conducts research, identifies new and emerging trends, and participates and provides

input in departmental, inter-departmental, international and civil society working groups and

committees. It also establishes networks and identifies key partners to enhance ILPS’ knowledge

of doctrines, theories, principles and concepts related to international justice sector issues and

Canada's foreign policy priorities.

Knowledge of Canadian justice system principles, structures, processes and experiences

transferred to recipient countries to assist them in strengthening their justice systems.

Through their interaction with ILPS, foreign countries receiving legal technical assistance gain

knowledge and a better understanding of how to reconstruct or reform their legal system. The ILPS

provides advice or training on how to address the recipient country's specific concerns with their

legal system, or design plans for implementing changes. Each project has specific outcomes on

which the ILPS must report.

3. Intermediate Outcomes

Enhanced capacity of Canada to participate strategically in foreign policy and international

development matters.

Through the activities of its strategic advice and outreach function, the ILPS enhances knowledge

in the Canadian federal system on current and emerging international justice sector development

Evaluation Division

58

matters; allows Canada to be prepared and responsive to contemporary and emerging justice sector

challenges faced by foreign countries and regions of interest to Canada; and enhances the capacity

of Canada to participate strategically in foreign policy and international justice sector development

matters.

Enhanced capacity of recipient countries to deliver fair and accessible justice.

ILPS works collaboratively with and provides legal technical assistance and training to recipient

countries, and in so doing, assists these countries in building their capacity to deliver fair and

accessible justice.

4. Ultimate Outcome

Strengthened rule of law and improved systems of justice internationally in furtherance of

Justice Canada and Government of Canada priorities and foreign policy objectives.

ILPS promotes Canada's democratic values in targeted regions of the world. In particular, through

the interaction with ILPS and the experience of addressing specific justice-related issues, recipient

countries gain a better understanding of how to strengthen their justice systems and better act in

accordance with the rule of law and democratic principles. As such, the ultimate outcome of the

ILPS contributes to the first strategic outcome of the Department, "A fair, relevant and accessible

Canadian justice system”.

Evaluation of the


59

LOGIC MODEL: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAMS SECTION

Conducting Research Providing Strategic Advice Participating in Bilateral and Multi-lateral Information-Sharing Meetings

Strengthened rule of law and improved systems of justice internationally in furtherance of Justice Canada and Government of Canada priorities and foreign policy objectives

Needs assessments, project proposals, administrative arrangements, implementation,

plans, budget, consultation summaries, comparative charts, research papers, manuals, guidelines, reports

Enhanced capacity of recipient countries to deliver fair and accessible justice

Enhanced knowledge in the Canadian federal system of current and emerging

international justice sector development matters

Knowledge of Canadian justice system principles, structures, processes and experiences transferred to recipient countries to assist them

in strengthening their justice systems

Research papers, briefing notes, memos, presentations, product database, meetings, networking, web site

ACTIVITIES

OUTPUTS

IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

ULTIMATE OUTCOME

STRATEGIC OUTCOME A fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system

Strategic Advice and Outreach Function Project Design and Implementation Function

Delivering Legal Technical Assistance Internationally by:

Designing and Implementing Projects

Reporting and Information Sharing

Project Management

Enhanced capacity of Canada to participate strategically in foreign policy and international development matters

Appendix B:

Evaluation Matrix

63

Evaluation Matrix

Issues/Questions Indicators Data Sources Responsibility for Collecting

RELEVANCE

1. To what extent are the activities of

ILPS aligned with the federal

priorities and strategic outcomes of

the Department of Justice?

Comparison of ILPS description of activities to

stated federal priorities in the area of international

development and strategic outcomes

Alignment of ILPS objectives/activities with

federal priorities

Alignment of ILPS objectives/activities with the

Department's strategic outcomes

Key informant interviews

Document review

JUS Evaluation Division

ILPS

2. To what extent are the activities of

ILPS aligned with federal roles and

responsibilities? Is there a legitimate

and necessary role for the federal

government in providing

international legal assistance?

Alignment of ILPS objectives/activities with

federal government's roles and responsibilities

Continued relevance of federal government

involvement in international development

activities for the justice sector in other countries

Document review



ILPS

3. Is there a continued need for ILPS? Continued need for strategic advice and outreach

function

Continued need for legal technical assistance in

countries in transition assisted by ILPS

Impact of research, strategic partnerships and

advice on international Justice Sector

developmental matters

Benefits of JUS participation in international

meetings

Document review



ILPS

DESIGN

4. Are the mandate and objectives of

ILPS clear? Clarity of stated mandate and objectives of ILPS

Awareness of the stated mandate and objectives

of ILPS among client agencies

Document review



ILPS

5. Is the ILPS governance structure

appropriate? Clarity of ILPS’ roles and responsibilities Document review



ILPS

6. Does ILPS have in place appropriate

methods/systems for monitoring

performance and reporting on

outcomes?

Standardized methods for monitoring

performance and reporting on outcomes

Appropriateness of these methods

Document review



ILPS

Evaluation Division

64


PERFORMANCE – Achievement of Expected Outcomes

7. To what extent has ILPS achieved its

expected outcomes? Number and nature of projects

Extent to which knowledge was enhanced in the

Canadian federal system of current and emerging

international justice sector development matters

Extent to which knowledge of Canadian justice

system principles, structures, processes and

experiences transferred to recipient countries to

assist them in strengthening their justice system

Extent to which capacity of Canada was

enhanced to participate strategically in foreign

policy and international development matters

Evidence of enhanced capacity of recipient

countries to deliver fair and accessible justice

Extent to which ILPS has contributed to

strengthen rule of law and improve systems of

justice internationally in furtherance of Justice

Canada and Government of Canada priorities and

foreign policy objectives

Document review

Project semi-annual reports to GAC

Project annual reports to GAC

project performance reports

Strategic advice

Research papers

Presentations/briefing material


Case studies


ILPS

8. What factors are contributing to or

constraining the achievement of

expected outcomes?

Identified best practices and challenges

Nature of factors contributing to or constraining

success

Document review

Project semi-annual reports to GAC

Project annual reports to GAC


Case studies


ILPS

9. To what extent have partnerships

supported the achievement of ILPS

outcomes?

Number and nature of partnerships

Contribution of partnerships to achieving

identified outcomes

Perception of the contribution of partnerships to

achieving the identified outcomes

Document review


Case studies


ILPS

10. Have ILPS activities led to any

unintended or unanticipated impacts? Instances of unintended impacts and their effects Document review



ILPS

Evaluation of the


65


EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

11. Are there more appropriate and

efficient means of achieving the

expected results of ILPS activities?

Alternative management, accountability and

reporting methods

Identified resource challenges

Appropriateness of ILPS organizational structure

to support its outcomes

Level of funding


Document review


ILPS

12. How could the efficiency and

economy of ILPS be improved? Extent to which ILPS outcomes could be

achieved for less money

Identified areas for improvement in efficiency

and effectiveness of ILPS performance

Key informant interviews JUS Evaluation Division

ILPS

13. Are other organizations within or

outside of government better placed

to deliver these programs and

services?

Other organizations within or outside of

government that are engaged in international

development activities for the justice sector in

other countries. Degree to which JUS activities

complement/duplicate these organizations'

activities

Document review



ILPS

Appendix C:

Data Collection Instruments

69

Evaluation of the International Legal Programs Section (ILPS)

Key Informant Interview Guide for ILPS Counsel

The 2009 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on Evaluation requires federal departments

to evaluate all direct program spending every five years. Consequently, the Department of Justice

Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the International Legal Programs Section

(ILPS). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which ILPS provides relevant and

effective assistance to foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice system. The evaluation

includes interviews with those working within ILPS, with representatives of the Department of

Justice and of other organizations familiar with the work of ILPS.

The information gathered through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will

not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review a written

summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

The evaluation focuses on the period 2009 to 2014, so please consider your experiences during

this period in your responses.

Your input and participation are greatly appreciated.

Introduction

1. Please describe your current role/position and responsibilities as they relate to your work with

ILPS.

Relevance

2. Please describe the extent to which the activities of ILPS are aligned with:

a) the strategic outcomes of the Department of Justice;

o Strategic Outcome A: A fair, relevant and accessible Canadian Justice System.

o Strategic Outcome B: A federal government that is supported by high-quality legal

services;

b) the federal priorities in the area of international development.

Evaluation Division

70

3. In your view, is there a legitimate and necessary role for the Canadian federal government to

provide international legal assistance to foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice

system?

a) If yes, please elaborate.

b) If no, why not?

4. Please describe the extent to which the activities of ILPS are aligned with the federal

government’s roles and responsibilities with respect to international development.

5. In your opinion, have there been any changes in the level or nature of the demand for the

activities of ILPS in the last 5 years? Please consider the volume and the type of activities

requested (such as technical legal assistance, strategic advice, and outreach).

6. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS:

a) To provide technical assistance to foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice

system?

1) If yes, what are the benefits of having this type of assistance provided by ILPS?

2) If no, why not?

b) To provide strategic advice and have strategic partnerships relating to international justice

sector development issues?

1) If yes, what are the benefits?

2) If no, why not?

c) To participate in national and international information-sharing meetings?

1) If yes, what are the benefits?

2) If no, why not?

Design

7. In your opinion, is the governance structure of ILPS appropriate?

Evaluation of the


71

8. Do you think that the roles and responsibilities of ILPS are clear? Please explain.

a) If not, what more needs to be done?

9. Does ILPS have a systematic process in place for collecting information, and monitoring and

reporting on its performance results?

a) If yes, how is this information used?

b) If no, why not?

Performance – Effectiveness

10. Please describe briefly how ILPS becomes involve in starting a technical assistance project?

11. Thinking about what has resulted from the technical assistance project in (Specific Country)

in which ILPS has been involved, please indicate the extent to which this project achieved its

intended results of:

a) Knowledge transfer to assist (Specific Country) to strengthen its justice system;

b) Improved capacity of (Specific Country) to deliver fair and accessible justice; and

c) Strengthened rule of law and overall improved justice system of (Specific Country).

12. Have any partnerships develop while implementing the (Project) in (Specific Country)?

a) If yes, what types of organizations were involved?

b) What was the nature of the contributions made by these partnerships?

13. What worked particularly well while implementing the (Project)?

14. What, if anything, did not work so well while implementing the (Project)?

15. Were there any unintended or unanticipated impacts, either positive or negative, that occurred

while implementing the (Project)?

a) If yes, what were they?

Evaluation Division

72

16. Based on your experience working with ILPS, what would you identify as best practices and/or

lessons learned in the delivery of ILPS’ work of providing technical assistance?

17. Turning to the strategic advice activities of ILPS, please briefly describe how ILPS becomes

involve in providing strategic advice relating to justice sector development issues.

18. Thinking about the results achieved for the strategic advice function that ILPS has been

involved, please indicate the extent to which each of the following intended results have been

achieved:

a) Transfer of knowledge of current and emerging international development justice sector

issues to Justice Canada and to other Canadian federal departments;

b) Improved capacity of Canada to participate strategically in foreign policy and international

development justice sector issues; and

c) Advanced the priorities and foreign policy objectives of the Government of Canada.

19. Did any partnerships develop while undertaking the strategic advice function?



20. From your perspective, what would you identify as best practices and/or lessons learned with

respect to ILPS’s work in providing strategic advice relating to justice sector development

issues?

a) And now, turning to information-sharing and outreach, please briefly describe how ILPS

becomes involve in bilateral and multilateral information-sharing meetings. (For example,

specific GAC working group meetings, the Canada-UK-US Trilateral meetings)

Evaluation of the


73

21. Thinking about the results achieved for the information-sharing meetings that ILPS has been

involved, please indicate the extent to which each of the following intended results have been

achieved:

a) Exchange of knowledge of current and emerging international development justice sector

issues at bilateral and multilateral information sharing meetings;




22. Have any partnerships developed from the information-sharing meetings?


b) What were the nature of the contributions made by these partnerships?

Performance (Efficiency & Economy)

23. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g. human, financial, technological, other) in place

to support the work of ILPS?

24. How has ILPS managed any resource challenges?

25. Are the most appropriate levels of legal counsel assigned to the various ILPS activities? Please

elaborate.

a) What measures are in place to ensure that the activities of ILPS are carried out efficiently

and cost-effectively? (For example: i) assigning appropriate levels of counsel to a project;

ii) using tools and practices to reduce the costs of the project)

26. Have there been any factors that have influenced, either positively or negatively, ILPS’ ability

to provide its activities efficiently? Please elaborate.

27. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency and/or cost-effectiveness

of the activities provided by ILPS?

Evaluation Division

74

28. What other organizations outside of government are engaged in international development

activities for the justice sector?

a) Are these organizations complementing or duplicating the work of the ILPS. Please

elaborate.

Conclusion

29. Do you have anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for your time. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Evaluation of the


75


Key Informant Interview Guide for Partners of Legal Technical Assistance Projects








The information gathered through this interview questionnaire will be summarized in aggregate

form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have the opportunity to review

a written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.




Introduction

1. Please describe your current role/position and responsibilities as they relate to your

involvement with the International Legal Programs Section (ILPS) of the Department of

Justice Canada.

Relevance

2. In your view, is there a legitimate and necessary role for the Canadian federal government to

provide international legal assistance?


b) If no, why not?

Evaluation Division

76

3. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS to provide technical assistance to foreign

countries seeking to modernize their justice system?

a) If yes, what are the benefits of having this type of assistance provided by ILPS?

b) If no, why not?

Design

4. Do you think that the roles and responsibilities of ILPS are clearly communicated to your

organization? Please explain.

a) If not, are there ways in which ILPS can communicate its roles and responsibilities more

clearly?

b) What else can be improved?

5. Does the ILPS use a systematic process for collecting information, and monitoring and

reporting on its performance results for the (Project) in the (Specific Country)?

a) If yes, how is this information used?

b) If no, why not?


6. Please indicate the extent to which transfer of knowledge by ILPS on current and emerging

international development justice sector-related issues to other Canadian federal departments

have occurred. (i.e., any Strategic advice provided to your organization by ILPS)

7. Please briefly describe how the ILPS became involved in starting the (Project) to provide

technical legal assistance in the (Specific Country).

Evaluation of the


77

8. Now, I would like to ask you about what has resulted from the (Project) in (Specific Country)

in which ILPS has been involved. To what extent has the (Project) achieve its intended results

in terms of:

a) Knowledge transfer to assist the (Specific Country) to strengthen its justice system;

b) Improved capacity of the (Specific Country) to deliver fair and accessible justice; and

c) Strengthened rule of law and overall improved justice system of the (Specific Country).

9. Has any partnerships develop while implementing the (Project) in the (Specific Country)?



10. What has worked particularly well while implementing the (Project)?

11. What, if anything, has not worked so well while implementing the (Project)?

12. Are there any unintended or unanticipated impacts, either positive or negative, that have

occurred while implementing the (Project)?

a) If yes, what are they?


lessons learned in the delivery of ILPS’ work of providing technical assistance through the

(Project) in the (Specific Country)?

14. In general, how satisfied are you with the technical assistance work your organization has

received from the ILPS?

Performance (Efficiency & Economy)

15. Are other organizations in the (Specific Country) engaged in international development

activities for the justice sector?

a) If yes, are these organizations complementing or duplicating the work of ILPS that is being

done in the (Specific Country)? Please elaborate.

Evaluation Division

78

Conclusion

16. Do you have anything you would like to add about your experience working with ILPS?


Evaluation of the


79


Key Informant Interview Guide for Beneficiaries of the

Legal Technical Assistance Projects














Introduction

1. Please describe your current role and responsibilities within your organization.

2. What is the nature of your organization’s relationship with the International Legal Programs

Section (ILPS) of the Department of Justice Canada?

Relevance

3. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS to provide legal technical assistance to

foreign countries seeking to modernize their justice system?

a) If yes, what are the benefits of having this type of assistance provided by ILPS?

b) If no, why not?

Evaluation Division

80


4. Please briefly describe how ILPS became involved in starting the (Project) to provide legal

technical assistance in (Specific Country)?

5. Now, I would like to ask you about what has resulted from the (Project) in which ILPS has

been involved. To what extent did the (Project) achieve its intended results in terms of:

a) Knowledge transfer to assist (Specific Country) to strengthen its justice system;

b) Improved capacity of (Specific Country) to deliver fair and accessible justice; and

c) Strengthened rule of law and overall improved justice system of (Specific Country).

6. Has any partnerships develop while implementing the (Project)?



7. What worked particularly well while implementing the (Project)?

8. What, if anything, did not work so well while implementing the (Project)?

9. Were there any unintended or unanticipated impacts, either positive or negative, that occurred

while implementing the (Project)?

a) If yes, what were they?

10. In general, how satisfied are you with the legal technical assistance your organization has been

receiving from ILPS?


lessons learned in the delivery of ILPS’ work of providing legal technical assistance?

Evaluation of the


81

Performance –Efficiency & Economy

12. What other organizations outside of your government are providing international justice sector

related services in (Specific Country)?

a) Please elaborate.

Conclusion



Evaluation Division

82


Key Informant Interview Guide for Partners of the Strategic Advice Function














Introduction

1. Please describe your current role and responsibilities within your organization.

2. What is the nature of your organization’s relationship with the International Legal Programs

Section (ILPS) of the Department of Justice Canada?

Relevance

3. In your view, is there a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government to provide



b) If no, why not?

Evaluation of the


83

4. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS to provide strategic advice and develop

strategic partnerships relating to international justice sector development issues?

a) If yes, what are the benefits?

b) If no, why not?

Design

5. Do you think that the roles and responsibilities of ILPS are clearly communicated to your

organization? Please explain.

a) If not, are there ways in which ILPS can communicate its roles and responsibilities more

clearly to clients?

b) What else can be improved?


6. Please briefly describe how ILPS became involved in providing strategic advice relating to

justice sector development issues to your organization.

7. Thinking about the results achieved for the strategic advice function that ILPS has been

involved, please indicate the extent to which each of the following intended results were

achieved:

a) Transfer of knowledge of current and emerging international development justice sector

issues to Justice Canada and to other Canadian federal departments;



c) Advanced the priorities and foreign policy objectives of Justice Canada and the

Government of Canada.

8. Did any partnerships develop while undertaking the strategic advice function?



Evaluation Division

84

9. Were there any factors that contributed or constrained ILPS’ ability to provide timely and high-

quality strategic advice to your organization?


10. In general, how satisfied are you with the work on strategic advice relating to justice sector

development issues your organization has been receiving from ILPS?


lessons learned in the delivery of ILPS’ work in providing strategic advice relating to justice

sector development issues?

Performance – Efficiency & Economy

12. What other organizations outside of government are providing international justice sector

related services?

a) Please elaborate.

Conclusion



Evaluation of the


85


Key Informant Interview Guide for Partners of the Outreach Function














Introduction

1. Please describe your position and responsibilities as they relate to your relationship with the

International Legal Programs Section (ILPS) of the Department of Justice Canada.

Relevance

2. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS to participate in international information-

sharing meetings such as the Canada-UK-US Trilateral Meeting on International Justice Sector

Development?

a) If yes, what are the benefits?

b) If no, why not?


3. Please briefly describe how ILPS became involved in the Canada-UK-US Trilateral Meeting

on International Justice Sector Development

Evaluation Division

86

4. Thinking about the results achieved from the Canada-UK-US Trilateral Meetings on

International Justice Sector Development that ILPS has been involved, please indicate the

extent to which each of the following intended results have been achieved:

a) Exchange of knowledge of current and emerging international development justice sector

issues at bilateral and multilateral information sharing meetings;




5. Have any partnerships developed from the Trilateral Meetings?


b) What were the nature of the contributions made by these partnerships?

6. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship with ILPS?


lessons learned from ILPS’ participation in information-sharing meetings?

Performance (Effectiveness & Efficiency)

8. Are there other organizations that can either complement and/or duplicate the participation of

ILPS in the Canada-UK-US Trilateral Meetings on International Justice Sector Development?

Please elaborate.

Conclusion

9. Do you have anything else you would like to add about your relationship with ILPS?


Evaluation of the


87


Key Informant Interview Guide for the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister














Introduction

1. Please describe your current role/position and responsibilities as they relate to your work with

ILPS.

Relevance

2. Please describe the extent to which the activities of ILPS are aligned with the:

a) Strategic outcomes of the Department of Justice;

o Strategic Outcome A: A fair, relevant and accessible Canadian Justice System.

o Strategic Outcome B: A federal government that is supported by high-quality legal

services;

b) Federal priorities in the area of international development.

Evaluation Division

88

3. In your view, is there a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government to provide



b) If no, why not?

4. Please describe the extent to which the activities of ILPS are aligned with the federal

government’s roles and responsibilities with respect to international development.

5. In your opinion, is there a continued need for ILPS?

a) If yes, please elaborate. Should ILPS continue to provide legal technical assistance,

strategic advice, and participate in national and international information-sharing

meetings?

b) If no, why not?

Design

6. In your opinion, is the governance structure of ILPS appropriate?

7. Do you think that the roles and responsibilities of ILPS are clear? Please explain.

a) If not, what more needs to be done?


8. In general, how satisfied are you with the work produced by ILPS?

9. In your view, what has worked particularly well for ILPS?

10. What has not worked so well for ILPS?

Performance (Efficiency & Effectiveness)

11. On your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g. human, financial, technological, other) in place

to support the work of ILPS?

Evaluation of the


89

12. Have there been any factors that have influenced, either positively or negatively, ILPS’ ability

to provide its activities efficiently? Please elaborate.

13. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency and/or cost-effectiveness

of the activities provided by ILPS?

Conclusion

14. Do you have anything else you would like to add about your experience working with ILPS?

Thank you very much for your time and input. Your participation is greatly appreciated.